Levers For the Cops


PDA






Mauserguy
November 9, 2008, 12:25 PM
I recently read an article that a police agency was buying AR rifles and accessories for several thousand dollars. The guns were to be placed the the trunks of patrol cars. Wouldn't a five hundred dollar lever rifle, perhaps a Marlin 1894, work just as well for the cops, cost a lot less, and be more durable? Why don't cops use levers?
Mauserguy

If you enjoyed reading about "Levers For the Cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ChristopherG
November 9, 2008, 12:57 PM
Speaking as a genuine enthusiast of lever-guns (having used them in 3-gun shoots where everyone else was shooting an AR15), let me say why I would still rather have an AR for patrol:

Capacity and reloading. A skilled lever operator can ALMOST keep up for maybe 9 rounds with an AR, but then it's all over.

Options for add-ons. Putting a variety of suitable optics, lights, etc. onto an AR is much more readily accomplished than a lever-gun. And in a patrol rifle, I consider a light a necessity and a low- or zero- magnification optic a desideratum.

One-handed manipulation. Yes, it can be done with a lever; but it's slow and tough.

Range. Depending on projectile shape and caliber, the lever gun's practical range is always some mere fraction of an AR's.

If I had to use a lever-gun on patrol, I'd be okay with it. But my agency says it's got to be an AR, and I'm okay with that, 'cause there I think there are advantages to the platform, as stated.

rcmodel
November 9, 2008, 02:04 PM
I think you would be amazed if you knew how many .44 Mag & 30-30 lever-guns ride in the trunks of cop cars west of the Mississippi!

I know a Kansas HP officer who carried his own Marlin .44 Mag Guide-Gun, stuffed with Buffalo Bore ammo on duty.
He said he was very comfortable knowing what it would do to a car in the event he needed it to.

grimjaw
November 9, 2008, 02:27 PM
What target can you pick up quicker with iron sights than you can with a red dot, especially at low light or nighttime? If you can't put something like an aperture sight or illuminated optic on it, that alone would be enough to dissuade me.

For me, after that it's a caliber consideration rather than platform.

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 02:29 PM
I think some cops do get Remington 7615 pump rifles, also.

I can't help thinking that the AR has a "coolness factor" to it, though -- not that I would mind having a high-capacity semiauto on patrol, of course. However, I wonder whether the average patrol officer wouldn't be better served by a larger caliber firearm, as rcmodel describes.

A story was posted here a while back about a buffalo ranch that had a corral break. The local cops were dispatched and tried to stop the huge, pissed-off animals with their .223 carbines, with predictable results.

The differences between peace officer needs for firearms and military needs seem pretty significant, to me. A cop doesn't have to carry 300 rounds on his person while walking for miles on foot, for example. The police generally are operating in areas populated with civilians, so they'd be less likely to want to "hose down" their adversaries, as opposed to one-shot stops. Rural cops, while they don't have to worry as much about bystanders, might encounter large animals on calls. Therefore, a larger caliber than .223 might make sense for police use.

The AR platform works fine. Hell, I like it in .22LR. But I wonder if cops wouldn't be better served by an AR in at least 6.8, 7.62x39, or somesuch. An AR-10 could work, but I think the size and weight penalty take it out of the running.

kcmarine
November 9, 2008, 02:29 PM
When it comes to a shootout, you need to be able to put a lot of ammo on target very quickly. As said before, the lever gun would do this just as well as an AR for the first 9 or 10 rounds, then be hopelessly outpaced. The AR can be fitted with an adjustable stock, and today's Law Enforcement world has women in it that need a smaller firearm. Recoil is also lower, which can make the difference for smaller officers as well. Parts are easier to standardize and replace. And, as is necessary for any government agency, the purchase of an AR allows for the waste of thousands of dollars per weapon for accessories that may not be needed for a patrol rifle. Ain't that grand?

Archie
November 9, 2008, 02:30 PM
I'm still not convinced every event involving a law enforcement officer - or non LEO for that matter - in a self-defense setting requires sixty or seventy shots fired.

I suppose one can make a case for a convoy of biker hoodlums raiding someplace, but that is not the sort of thing I read about in the news much. Yes, I do read about LEO "A" who, while in a shootout with villain "B", fires thirty or forty rounds of ammunition. This equates to thirty or forty misses, by the way.

Here are the real questions at hand:

How many evil doers should one reasonably expect?

What is one's skill level in placing hits on said evil doers?

No amount of ammunition expenditure is going to replace the ability to shoot. No matter what the bureaucrats say. If one cannot hit, nothing is suitable.

ShootinDave
November 9, 2008, 02:32 PM
PD's choose them for the same reason the military does, they are better combat weapons all around.

Everything else is training, which is a different issue.

kcmarine
November 9, 2008, 02:39 PM
I suppose one can make a case for a convoy of biker hoodlums raiding someplace, but that is not the sort of thing I read about in the news much. Yes, I do read about LEO "A" who, while in a shootout with villain "B", fires thirty or forty rounds of ammunition. This equates to thirty or forty misses, by the way.

Here are the real questions at hand:

How many evil doers should one reasonably expect?

What is one's skill level in placing hits on said evil doers?

No amount of ammunition expenditure is going to replace the ability to shoot. No matter what the bureaucrats say. If one cannot hit, nothing is suitable.
__________________

Very good point. I've always wondered how cops end up missing so often. That or they go overkill... I remember hearing some stories about officers here in the Midwest (Kansas City and Des Moines come to mind) where the cops don't miss at all. In fact, they hit the suspect around thirty or forty times, WITH THE SERVICE PISTOL. Usually, it's an officer and a partner that have been threatened. Missing seems to be a big problem for policemen on the west coast though... sheesh... the West Hollywood shootout... you're telling me that through that entire time, not ONE officer could draw a bead on that guy's head and take him out that way?

Dookie
November 9, 2008, 03:08 PM
Usually, it's an officer and a partner that have been threatened. Missing seems to be a big problem for policemen on the west coast though... sheesh... the West Hollywood shootout... you're telling me that through that entire time, not ONE officer could draw a bead on that guy's head and take him out that way?It's super easy to point, aim, and shoot at a person who is shooting at you. Lets see you do it. Most police officers are not combat hardened SEALS, they are a college grad with basic training, maybe.
Ever hear of cover fire? Many times the point of shooting is not to hit a person but to cover for another person to get into position. If the BG can't move because of lots of lead around him it gives the police the ability to move closer. Can't do THAT with a lever action.
Lever action, slower cycle time, lower capacity, less accurate, more complicated internals, yep, perfect service rifle over the AR.

kcmarine
November 9, 2008, 03:12 PM
I'd agree with you Dookie, but it's not the case that all of the officers were being shot at all at once.

indoorsoccerfrea
November 9, 2008, 03:13 PM
you cant always tell who is getting shot at, its kinda hard to spot lead moving through the air at however many thousand fps it may be traveling...

woof
November 9, 2008, 03:13 PM
I agree with Archie - you can't miss fast enough to win a gunfight.

Frog48
November 9, 2008, 03:16 PM
they are a college grad with basic training, maybe.


If that. Less than 20% of state/local LEO's have a college degree.

deercop
November 9, 2008, 03:50 PM
How much value would you place on the intimidation factor? Face it, a M4 has a lot more intimidation value than a 30-30.

There's a lot to recommend being able to resolve a situation w/o a shot being fired.

black_powder_Rob
November 9, 2008, 04:30 PM
try shooting at someone who is firing a full auto rifles at you and tell me how well you can draw a bead on ones head. Keep in mind that the bank robbers were also shooting at anything that moved.

PRM
November 9, 2008, 04:55 PM
Back in the 80s I worked for a rural county Sheriff's Office that did not furnish weapons to its officers. Because we furnished our own - we had a lot of freedom in what we chose. The only requirement we had was to qualify on an approved course prior to carrying a given firearm. My service revolver was a .357 S&W and I kept a lever action .357 in my patrol car. At the time, I could not afford an AR and wanted something compatible with my revolver.

MikePGS
November 9, 2008, 05:01 PM
What is one's skill level in placing hits on said evil doers?
There are far too many instances of LEO's unloading dozens of rounds on a suspect and only scoring a few hits. The infamous L.A. bank robbery lasted as long as it did because no one could hit them in the head (not that I could, but certainly its possible with the appropriate level of training). Even the Miami Shootout that lead to the creation of the 10mm and ultimately to the .40 S&W was finished by a LEO shooting a.... .38 special. He just happened to be able to place his shot where it counted.

M203Sniper
November 9, 2008, 05:02 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-2/113955/SOPMOD.jpg

HorseSoldier
November 9, 2008, 05:13 PM
I think PRM makes a good point -- it seems to me that the patrol carbine exists partly to generate a psychological impact, making bad guys feel outgunned and making the public feel like The Powers That Be Have The Emergency Under Control (TM).

A military looking rifle sends both those messages better than something that looks suspiciously like granpappy's deer rifle.

But also, we live in a world where the bad guy in a scenario where an LEO might deploy and fire a patrol carbine may be armed with their own AR-15, AK, or whatever. I'd prefer parity or better, in a fighting rifle in a scenario like that. I suppose that's also a pyschological issue, in this case concerning the guys who're expected to go in harm's way.

A better question might be what does the lever gun do that the pump shotgun LEOs are likely also carrying doesn't? If I'm not mistaken, the shotgun gets pulled out of the cop car much more frequently than the M4gery or whatever.

jaholder1971
November 9, 2008, 05:16 PM
I know a Kansas HP officer who carried his own Marlin .44 Mag Guide-Gun, stuffed with Buffalo Bore ammo on duty.
He said he was very comfortable knowing what it would do to a car in the event he needed it to.

Wow! I though KHP was allowd only what they were issued, which IIRC is Ruger's Ranch Rifle .223

JImbothefiveth
November 9, 2008, 05:32 PM
Why would a cop pick a lever action over an AR-15(That's proven itself to be reliable)? Sure, he might be able to get his job done with a lever action, but if it's life or death, don't you want every possibly advantage you can get?

Yes, I do read about LEO "A" who, while in a shootout with villain "B", fires thirty or forty rounds of ammunition. This equates to thirty or forty misses, by the way.
That's a matter of training. A lever action does not automatically make it's user a better shooter.(Unless the cops learn to spray and pray while training with their AR-15s, but that too can be trained out of them).

Crazy Fingers
November 9, 2008, 05:37 PM
Considering that your life is at stake, would you really want to use a lever action rifle over an AR?

If I were ever unfortunate enough to end up in a gunfight, I would hope my opponent had been brainwashed by enough cowboy action shoots and western movies to choose the lever action.

kcmarine
November 9, 2008, 05:40 PM
I understand it's not easy. At no point did I say it was easy. But let's look at the numbers here.

According to the Wikipedia article on the incident, 300 law enforcement officers responded to the TAC alert issued. Over 600 rounds were fired at Emil Matasareanu and Larry Phillips, Jr, during the conflict. The two men themselves fired around 1,000 rounds at police. While I understand mentioning that I got these figures from Wikipedia cheapens my argument, all of them have an in line citation with a source. 19 officers received the LAPD's Medal of Valor for their actions during the shootout.

Now, knowing this, we can assume that at least 19 officers were directly engaged with the gunmen during the firefight, which lasted 44 minutes. The incident occurred in a suburban part of Los Angeles, and like most of LA, this area was made up of a grid of streets. The bank faced a parking lot, separated by a boulevard. Behind the parking lot was a professional building.

I understand that the officers were equipped with Beretta 92 model pistols and 12 gauge shotguns. It might have been a long shot, but if you could have hidden at least some of those 19 officers in that professional building and spread them throughout the building, you would have made it much harder for the two robbers to pick out their targets, and would have made a much less stressed shot for the officers. The distance would have also made the shot harder for the suspects, whom were more of the spray and pray discipline.

Another thing to consider is that the bank was flanked by two parking lots, both of which are relatively wide. Another place to make a surprise, somewhat timed shot on the suspects. Drive a police car (with its sirens off... at this point in the shooting, it would be obvious that you don't want to draw attention to yourself as being a LEO) on angle with the building across the lot, pull your pistol out, fire. A shotgun might have a certain level of effectiveness here as well, because the energy exerted through the body armor might cause blunt force trauma.

There were definitely enough officers involved to have taken the men out earlier than they did, even with the weapons provided.

Overall, at least in hindsight, the main problem was poor tactics. I probably couldn't have done better myself, but who's to say better training and aim wouldn't help?

As a final note, I find it incredibly ironic that the LAPD went to a local gun store to get a hold of weapons capable of penetrating the body armor of the men. Really ironic. If the SWAT team hadn't arrived in time, the patrol officers would have had to borrow guns from the very people they were regulating.

Back to subject, I suppose...

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 05:47 PM
Perhaps a cop car trunk should contain an AR carbine, as simple as possible, and a scoped .308.

An AR carbine does not replace a rifle intended for long-range shots, nor does a heavy .308 bolt gun replace a CQB carbine.

A lever gun? I could see carrying one with big bullets (.45-70, .44 Buffalo Bore, etc.) in a rural area where a cop might be called to an animal attack. Otherwise, I'm not sure where it would fit in a peace officer's hierarchy of needs.

JImbothefiveth
November 9, 2008, 05:56 PM
A shotgun might have a certain level of effectiveness here as well, because the energy exerted through the body armor might cause blunt force trauma.
One of them was hit with the shotgun, he just spun around and kept on fighting.

The distance would have also made the shot harder for the suspects
The suspects had rifles, the officers had pistols. Rifles are usually far better than pistols at longer ranges.

It might have been a long shot, but if you could have hidden at least some of those 19 officers in that professional building and spread them throughout the building,
The officers also had to contain the robbers, they were trying to escape and would likely kill some innocents if they did.

Over 600 rounds were fired at Emil Matasareanu and Larry Phillips, Jr, during the conflict
I think a good number of rounds actually hit them, but were defeated by the body armor.

Float Pilot
November 9, 2008, 06:02 PM
I was a Law Dawg from 1982 until 2002 with a few periods of military activation.

1. In police work it is not so much shooting, but avoiding shooting.

Crashing through the door of a bad situation and obtaining compliance of all involved via command presence.
I carried a Valmet M-76FS and later a Car-15, plus 1100 or 870 Rem Riot gun for long guns. For most of those years I carried a Sig P220 as a sidearm.
I shot all of them on a weekly basis and made sure everyone in my patrol area knew that I did.

2. Law Enforcement shootings, by their nature draw lawyers like flies to a pile of manure.

Using a firearm and cartridge that has already been tested, tried and approved by some large government agency helps to keep the law suits away.
If you have to explain to a jury why you went out and built up your own personal people blaster, then you might as well just sign over the deed to your house right now...

ilbob
November 9, 2008, 06:08 PM
I think the cool factor has a lot to do with the AR platform being the rifle of choice for police departments.

Chances of anyone needing to duke it out for more than a few rounds are very slim.

An AR does have the advantage of being able to be fitted with a lot of nifty gadgets, some of which actually add to the utility of the gun.

Its well proven, and being as a lot of LE people are former military, chances are they are already familiar with it.

TAB
November 9, 2008, 06:11 PM
Cops should not be armed with anything the public can not buy.

ilbob
November 9, 2008, 06:11 PM
The North Hollywood shootout mostly proved the LAPD was completely unprepared for that type of action.

TAB
November 9, 2008, 06:14 PM
The North Hollywood shootout mostly proved the LAPD was completely unprepared for that type of actio


we have a winner...

P-32
November 9, 2008, 06:15 PM
As a LEO firearms inst. let me throw this in. Shooting at a targets held together with wood frames is different than shooting at a human target shooting back. I don't know of to many people who are able to score 100% at the range all the time either, unless your name is Tubbs. My guys and gals have few out and out misses. My department requires at least a 80% average beteeen two targets when doing quals. Everyone shoots above the mim average and I would like to raise it to 85% and when they meet that, to 90% with a goal of getting to 95%. But admin gets in the way.

Most gun fights happen at 7 feet and last about that many seconds. We tend to train more for the closer ranges with the handgun but still work at distance. We also train to shoot until the threat is stopped one way or the other. This could be 2 rounds or everything we have on our belt.

I also inst patrol rifle. We issue a AR carbine, not quite a M-4. The guys and gals shoots these very well, as there is little recoil and the plateform tends to send bullets where the sights are. If we know we are going to a gun fight then the patrol rifle is deployed. 2 quick hits center com normally stops most threats. If this doesn't work then we start working on hitting other parts of the human body until the threat is stopped.

While most levers guns do have the power to stop threats quickly, they tend to be too slow for follow up shots. Most people would pull the stock out of the shoulder to the work the lever, sight picture would be lost anyways vise quick follow up shots with a rifle where the sights only move a little bit if any.

Most houses will keep a 223 bullet from leaving the stucture, where as they won't with 30-30, 308 or '06.

HB
November 9, 2008, 06:17 PM
Why would a cop pick a lever action over an AR-15(That's proven itself to be reliable)? Sure, he might be able to get his job done with a lever action, but if it's life or death, don't you want every possibly advantage you can get?

Yes, but every cop car is getting in gunfights with badguys wearing body armor and carrying automatic weapons....

The biggest reason is $$$..... We pay for that stuff and more likely than not, the gun will sit in a trunk for it's entire existence except the 1 or 2 times a year it is used during quals. If the lever gun leaves you undergunned, wait for SWAT. It seems that policy now is that every officer has to have the tools and skills of a tac team, but only has them practice once or twice a year :rolleyes:

The majority of police shootings are with guys that aren't going back to prison or freak at a traffic stop. More rounds on tap generally means more shots fired too. After DA revolvers were fased out for autos, there was a more towards DAO auto because cops were simply letting too many rounds fly.

I think the shotgun is the perfect cop backup for most situations but it has fallen out of favor because it's not tacticool and it's rough on smaller framed people recoil-wise. STL City Police supposedly uses Beretta carbines, most suburbs have shotguns and a few have AR's and MP5's

HB

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 06:22 PM
more likely than not, the gun will sit in a trunk for it's entire existence except the 1 or 2 times a year it is used during quals.

Not true.

Our range rents time to LE agencies. They come and play with AR's in full auto. A couple of DHS guys were damn near giggling as they sprayed magazines full of ammo.

Your tax dollars at work.

Oh, and our college cops have an M4 and an 870 in every car, between the seats.

P-32: Do you ever do paintball with them? The few paintball battles I've been involved in taught me more about shooting while under fire than all the range time I've ever racked up.:)

JImbothefiveth
November 9, 2008, 06:24 PM
Cops should not be armed with anything the public can not buy.
Last time I checked, AR-15s are available to the public.

The biggest reason is $$$..
A lever gun would still not be the best coice, as an SKS or WASR-10 could still be had cheaper than a lever gun.

After DA revolvers were fased out for autos, there was a more towards DAO auto because cops were simply letting too many rounds fly. But the percentage of round on target increased, according to Massad Ayoob.

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 06:29 PM
California's cops, at least some of them, get post-86 select-fire AR's that are not available to the public anywhere in the US.

Furthermore, they get high-cap magazines and semauto detachable mag AR's that we can't buy in California, at all.

If these guns are "just for killing lots of people", "are for our soldiers abroad, not people in our cities", and "have no legitimate defensive applications", then I can't see why the cops don't need 'em, either.

Fig
November 9, 2008, 06:30 PM
This is my first post.

As an officer of 10 years, a lever rifle would be pretty silly. Just thinking if I missed the first time and had to cycle a round with the lever is just insane to me. With an AR, I could lay down cover fire if need be, with a lever rifle that is not going to happen. Oh and carrying spare ammo would be much more simple with an AR.

But, what it really comes down to is, will your dept let you have what rifle/round you want to carry and what is your preference.

TAB
November 9, 2008, 06:37 PM
But, what it really comes down to is, will your dept let you have what rifle/round you want to carry and what is your preference

actually, what it really comes down to is.. Its OUR money, you should have the rifle that WE want you to have. Most LEOs tend to forget who signs thier check( generalization based on my exp with LEOs)

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 06:52 PM
In California, many LEO's seem to have forgotten who signs their checks. The CHP seems pretty good, still. Others, not so much. It depends on the individual, of course, but all around, it seems that city cops have some issues.

In Idaho, my experience has been quite the opposite, as in, extremely positive, and that has included personal contacts with State Police, Boise Police, and Idaho Fish and Game. They're still called "peace officers" too, from what I have heard.

Anyway, I do think that a fighting carbine is only valuable if someone is specifically trained to use it under real-world conditions. It's wrong to send anyone into a deadly situation for which he's not trained. It's wrong to give a cop an AR and say, "All right, go do SWAT's job all by yourself when we tell you (try not to get killed, okay?), in between writing speeding tickets and helping lost kids find their parents. Sorry, but we haven't had time to train you, but with this tacticool rifle, who needs training, right?"

Beat cops have difficult jobs that involve infinite variety -- dealing with the law-abiding general public in between violent felons and everyone in between isn't easy. I hope that they're not just being given AR's as lucky charms, and sent into situations that should be handled differently.

Reality: if you need an AR to handle a situation, you'd better have some serious training for that situation, too, not just a few range sessions.

Fig
November 9, 2008, 06:53 PM
Dear Tab, where ever you work is paid by state employee's money as well. It all comes around. I hear that old line way too much and it is old.

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 06:57 PM
where ever you work is paid by state employee's money as well. It all comes around. I hear that old line way too much and it is old.

Uh, state employees' money IF they CHOOSE to spend it there.

There's a difference between being paid from tax dollars, which are taken involuntarily, and competing in the marketplace for money that state employees might choose to spend.

And I say that as someone who has worked for the state.

If it's getting old, it's you who needs to check yourself, not the taxpayer working in the private sector.

Fig
November 9, 2008, 06:57 PM
Armed bear, My dept requires officer to go to through the state rilfe course. To me that is not enough and I'll agree with you. I have military experience, but most officers do not.

Sorry to state that, the City manager's name is on my pay check.

TAB
November 9, 2008, 06:59 PM
Dear Tab, where ever you work is paid by state employee's money as well. It all comes around. I hear that old line way too much and it is old.

I think you just proved my point for me.

Fig
November 9, 2008, 07:00 PM
Armed Bear this discussion is getting pretty silly. I will stop posting on this thread.

Have a good day, I do respect you. I am sorry if I offended you or anyone on this thread.

Shawnee
November 9, 2008, 07:37 PM
I guess I'm the heretic of the crowd but I think many, if not most, of today's police tactics need to be revised bigtime.

"Cover fire", "suppression fire", shootouts, police precipitating shootouts, police carrying semi-autos while at lunch in McDonald's, police emptying their 9mms at moving vehicles and all the rest of that tacti-cool police horsexxxx that constantly endangers We, the People and kills some of us with alarming regularity needs to be left behind in the 19th century with the OK Corral where it belongs.

Real life example... Dayton last Spring.

Cops are onto a bad actor drug dealer and tailed him 24/7 for 2 months. They knew everywhere he conducted business. They knew everywhere he ate a burger. They knew he lived with his girlfriend and her four little kids. They knew he kept guns there. They knew she and her kids were not involved with the drug business. So they deliberately try to arrest him at 1am at the girlfriend's home with her kids present and end up blowing the woman away as she is holding her toddler and trying to get the hxxx out of the way. The toddler was slightly wounded too.

Nothing was done to the cops but they are going to "review their policies." And of course the taxpayers are going to pay a few million dollars to the woman's family. Had I been in charge everyone from the Chief to the janitor would have been hanging on the Public Square before daylight.:fire:


Another Dayton example from last Spring...

Teenage girl accepts a ride home with an older teen boy. He is a small-time druggie. She is sitting in the back seat. Cop pulls him over and approaches the car from the rear. As the cop comes alongside the teen guns it and takes off. Cop empties his pistol at the fleeing car and kills the girl. So-called "internal investigation" says the cop was justified and blameless in the death of the girl. Taxpayers pay again. Pure, 24K Bullxxxx. Entire Dayton police force should be in GITMO.:fire:

Before I would approve of arming local police forces with ARs I would approve stripping them of all lethal weapons so they would have to figure out a way to do their job without spraying the Public and community with lead, or die. More likely I would probably have them issued firearms in special circumstances for a specific arrest with the requirement to turn them back in after the arrest.

A couple old time San Antonio cops assured me they would rather face some knucklehead who was armed with an AR than someone armed with a 30/30 because the guy with the 30/30 might well be the kind of guy who makes his shots count.

End of soapbox.

:cool:

HorseSoldier
November 9, 2008, 07:52 PM
The biggest reason is $$$..... We pay for that stuff and more likely than not, the gun will sit in a trunk for it's entire existence except the 1 or 2 times a year it is used during quals.

I think that's not a universal.

As I understand it, a lot of departments don't issue patrol carbines, but allow officers to carry privately purchased weapons (I think at least one poster in the thread who's a current or former LEO mentioned his dept. took this approach). Others (including LAPD after North Hollywood) got surplus rifles from the US military, which have already been paid for.

Either way, that's pretty minimal cost to the tax payer, though other agencies and departments do buy and issue new rifles (again, as I understand it).

kcmarine
November 9, 2008, 09:49 PM
The North Hollywood shootout mostly proved the LAPD was completely unprepared for that type of action.

Thank you.

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 09:53 PM
A couple old time San Antonio cops assured me they would rather face some knucklehead who was armed with an AR than someone armed with a 30/30 because the guy with the 30/30 might well be the kind of guy who makes his shots count.


As I said to a friend regarding a HD shotgun...

A pump gun with a shroud and a light on it says, "I'm tacticool!"

A side-by-side coach gun says, "I'm a crazy redneck and I WILL kill you."

benEzra
November 9, 2008, 10:09 PM
If the lever gun leaves you undergunned, wait for SWAT.
After Columbine, the general consensus was that waiting for SWAT in an active-shooter situation only gets more innocent people killed.

Anyway, I do think that a fighting carbine is only valuable if someone is specifically trained to use it under real-world conditions. It's wrong to send anyone into a deadly situation for which he's not trained. It's wrong to give a cop an AR and say, "All right, go do SWAT's job all by yourself when we tell you (try not to get killed, okay?), in between writing speeding tickets and helping lost kids find their parents. Sorry, but we haven't had time to train you, but with this tacticool rifle, who needs training, right?"
A rifle is much easier to operate effectively under stress than a handgun, IMO. You don't need SWAT training to shoot a rifle better than a handgun.

ArmedBear
November 9, 2008, 10:13 PM
You don't need SWAT training to shoot a rifle better than a handgun.

Agreed.

However, you can use some of that kind of training to avoid getting killed while shooting the rifle. By definition, situations that call for a carbine are combat situations, and quite different from an armed arrest that calls for a pistol, or a violent confrontation where a shotgun is the weapon of choice.

Quoheleth
November 9, 2008, 10:25 PM
Where's Gecko45 when we need him? Certainly he could converse on this subject...

Since he's not here, my opinion, in a word: Usability.

Ever try to fire a lever action while prone? First shot is OK. Second shot, you probably have to roll sideways to work the action.

How about leaning over a car hood? Again, first shot - no problem. Second shot, your rear arm is moving all over the place. You will lose a precise sight picture almost guaranteed.

AR, Mini-14, etc., the gun does all the moving for you. Keep your stance/cover with little body movement.

Could it be done? Yep. Can you say, "Chuck Connors"? Skeeter Skelton loved having a lever action in his scout car. That was back in the day, though. In a day & age where even kids in school are packing semi-autos to class [shudder], LEOs need every break-even point they can get. Why hamstring them?

Q

Shawnee
November 9, 2008, 10:55 PM
"Ever try to fire a lever action while prone? First shot is OK. Second shot, you probably have to roll sideways to work the action."

That's what I mean by the police mentality/tactics need to change.

There are only two reasons why a cop would need a second shot.

1. He missed with the first one and that's his error for not waiting untill he had a shot he could make. His first bullet did no one any good and may have hit an innocent bystander.

2. He engaged multiple armed assailants by himself and from the wrong position and those are his S.W.A.T.zie machismo errors too.

Our police need to leave "bad-looking" black T-shirts and High Noon behind.

:cool:

piratelooking@40
November 9, 2008, 11:14 PM
Shawnee:

Holy cow! Time to listen to some Prozac, man.

HorseSoldier
November 10, 2008, 12:09 AM
That's what I mean by the police mentality/tactics need to change.

There are only two reasons why a cop would need a second shot.

1. He missed with the first one and that's his error for not waiting untill he had a shot he could make. His first bullet did no one any good and may have hit an innocent bystander.

2. He engaged multiple armed assailants by himself and from the wrong position and those are his S.W.A.T.zie machismo errors too.

Our police need to leave "bad-looking" black T-shirts and High Noon behind.

Um, no.

There's obviously #3 -- He hit the bad guy and the bad guy kept going. And before any manly chest thumping starts about the mighty knock down power of the thutty-thutty compared to mouse gun rounds, etc, it bear noting that there have been a lot of failures to stop observed with .308 long guns and machineguns over across the water. Occasional failures to stop from .50 cal hits.

Safest bet in a gunfight is possess the skill, the mindset, and the equipment to inflict however many gunshots on the bad guy until he is eliminated as a threat. That's just as true for cops as it is for military applications. If deadly force is justified, it's vital to eliminate the threat, whatever that takes.

As for the two scenarios raised:

#1 -- Under life and death stress accuracy in combat plummets for many reasons, some of them unavoidable aspects of human physiology and biology, even for guys who can print tiny groups on paper targets at the range. If an LEO has a legitimate need to use deadly force (and this issue seems to be the root of your problem), he or she, again, has a legitimate need to eliminate the threat as rapidly as possible for both their personal protection as well as the protection of any law abiding citizens who may be at risk.

#2 -- I may be wrong, but it seems to me like a whole lot of real LEO involved shootings don't involve much of any ability to choose engagements on the part of the cops. Sometimes two guys at a traffic stop turn out to be two wanted criminals who produce guns and commence to shooting, etc. Unless your idea of a perfect world is a SWAT team rolling as back up for any officer who is not 100% guaranteed to be dealing with only a single individual (and I'm sure that would not tend to produce use of force issues . . .) then your second point just isn't very viable, I don't think.

Shawnee
November 10, 2008, 12:32 AM
"Sometimes two guys at a traffic stop turn out to be two wanted criminals who produce guns and commence to shooting, etc"


Lawd forbid the cop be smart enough to back off until a satisfactory posse can be brought to bear. That would take actual Intelligence.

For that matter - our police need to rethink the entire matter of traffic stops. They are tied with domestic violence calls as the most dangerous deeds the LEO is asked to perform - that alone ought to be a tip-off - at least for intelligent people. 90% of all traffic stops don't need to be made anyway.

;)

P-32
November 10, 2008, 01:10 AM
Lawd forbid the cop be smart enough to back off until a satisfactory posse can be brought to bear. That would take actual Intelligence.

I work by my self many times. Back up can be a long ways away. Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.

1. He missed with the first one and that's his error for not waiting untill he had a shot he could make. His first bullet did no one any good and may have hit an innocent bystander

Most rookies even know the minimum responce is 2 rounds.

P-32: Do you ever do paintball with them? The few paintball battles I've been involved in taught me more about shooting while under fire than all the range time I've ever racked up.

No, but airsoft is in the works. Some of our officers have trained with sims. I wish we could afford those. We also have a fancy trailer with a newer version of FATS, the operator can shoot back. The trailer is owned by our insurance company and comes around a few times a year.

ArmedBear
November 10, 2008, 01:18 AM
Sometimes two guys at a traffic stop turn out to be two wanted criminals who produce guns and commence to shooting, etc.

...in which case, an AR-15 in the trunk might as well be a good luck charm in the ashtray...

If this happens with any sort of frequency, maybe some re-thinking of police tactics in general might be a good idea. I don't want to see good cops killed, with AR's in their trunks.

No, but airsoft is in the works.

Great! (Much of what I learned about a firefight, from simulated firefights, is that I don't really want to be in a firefight if it's avoidable. :) )

HorseSoldier
November 10, 2008, 01:56 AM
...in which case, an AR-15 in the trunk might as well be a good luck charm in the ashtray...

True, but Shawnee's complaints don't seem to be limited to patrol carbine use.


If this happens with any sort of frequency, maybe some re-thinking of police tactics in general might be a good idea. I don't want to see good cops killed, with AR's in their trunks.

Fox and/or SpikeTV don't seem to have much trouble finding cop dashboard cam footage of this scenario occurring frequently enough to fill hours of "Worlds Deadliest X/Y/Z" shows. I'd think any law enforcement agency that doesn't train for this as a worst case scenario is being negligent.


For that matter - our police need to rethink the entire matter of traffic stops. They are tied with domestic violence calls as the most dangerous deeds the LEO is asked to perform - that alone ought to be a tip-off - at least for intelligent people. 90% of all traffic stops don't need to be made anyway.

"Traffic stops are too dangerous, maybe we shouldn't do them" seems like kind of a shaky logic, really. Maybe I'm not anti-cop enough to grasp the logic.

Shawnee
November 10, 2008, 03:09 AM
Forget the "anti-cop" accusations, HorseSoldier. I'm just anti-Stupid and pro-We, the People.... and sick of reading about innocent people getting gunned down every week by our trigger-happy LEOs.

We need to rethink a LOT of our police policies and expectations - for the safety of the Public AND the safety of our officers. Those same San Antonio barrio cops told me The First Rule of Gunfights is: Don't get into one. They were not today's S.W.A.T.zies though, they were PEACE officers.

The best weapon any person has in any dangerous situation is the weapon between their ears and it's dangerous, crazy and downright criminal to pretend that can be replaced by an AR and a badge. Unfortunately our LEO establishment is about the most resistant to change organization there is. After all, it took almost a century to get them to rein in even a little bit on their Public-endangering "chase" polices.

:cool:

BHP FAN
November 10, 2008, 03:36 AM
Here in my part of California,the rifle and shotgun are not locked away uselessly in the trunk,they're in the front seat in a locked mount.

HorseSoldier
November 10, 2008, 03:54 AM
Forget the "anti-cop" accusations, HorseSoldier. I'm just anti-Stupid and pro-We, the People.... and sick of reading about innocent people getting gunned down every week by our trigger-happy LEOs.


Use of the term "SWATzie" doesn't exactly advance your claim to not being anti-cop. Suggesting that the police in this nation are on some kind of death squad rampage gunning down innocent civilians by the truck load also seems, if not hostile, at least somewhere towards the negative end of neutral.

We need to rethink a LOT of our police policies and expectations - for the safety of the Public AND the safety of our officers.

I'm not a cop, but this sounds a lot like when people start talking about "helping our poor boys in uniform," which is usually a preamble to anything but helping guys like me who actually are in uniform.

The best weapon any person has in any dangerous situation is the weapon between their ears and it's dangerous, crazy and downright criminal to pretend that can be replaced by an AR and a badge.

I'd be curious to hear some percentages on how often a patrol carbine is actually pulled out of the trunk/rack/etc. If I'm not mistaken, even hauling an assault rifle, or shotgun out of a patrol car, is subject to very particular and narrowly defined rules of engagement (or whatever the LE agency equivalent term is), much less actually firing it.

Unfortunately our LEO establishment is about the most resistant to change organization there is. After all, it took almost a century to get them to rein in even a little bit on their Public-endangering "chase" polices.

Actually, with the actions of any law enforcement officer liable to cost the city or state he or she works for millions in law suit related liability from most anything a jury can be convinced is negligence or simply bad form, I'd think the exact opposite would tend to be true.

Certainly LE agencies seem to have taken to less-than-lethal weapons like ducks to water, etc.

Shawnee
November 10, 2008, 05:28 AM
This thread has veered off-topic and out of the THR realm, and I'll take 51% of the blame, at least. My apologies to the Board and the Moderators, and the Moderators are welcome to delete any/all of my posts here.

Sorry Folks !
:o

KD5NRH
November 10, 2008, 07:32 AM
How about leaning over a car hood?

Why are you leaning out over your cover? Back up and use it right, and you won't have to move the gun to operate the lever. If you train right with a lever action, the next round will be chambered instinctively by the time you recover from recoil.

C-grunt
November 10, 2008, 07:39 AM
WOW OK there where do I start.

Im a cop for Phx PD. Very large city with a little over 3k officers. We have 60 rifles on the street. 60!. 500 square miles of city, 3 shifts, weekends, and sick days usually leave us with maybe 3-5 rifles on at any given time. Luckily one of those rifles is on my squad. It rarely gets used, but when it does its needed.Our patrol rifle operators have to go through a training course and qualify every 3 or 4 months.

If you want to stand in the front yard of a barricaded house with a guy in there armed with a FAL, by all means go ahead. Ill take a position back down the street with the rifle guys. If the guy comes out before SWAT gets there, Ill let him know it time-outies because youre not ready yet.

No officer knows he is going into a gunfight. One of my partners got into one while trespassing a transient from a motel. A good friend of mine was shot in the hand during a traffic stop. Officer Erfle was killed by a jaywalker. Officer Cortez was killed by a guy who was using bad checks.

Most stuff a LEO does doesnt require a backup and a lot of the time you cant get one. If its slow, NO ONE on my squad goes to a call alone, no matter what it is. But that doesnt always happen.

And yes the police have a bad rep for not so good accuracy and shooting lots of ammo. Most LEOs arent gunnies and the surprise of the sudden gunfight, non COM hits, and the moving target dont exactly help things either. Being a LEO has definitely taught me a couple things about pistols. Bad hits pretty much eqaul no hits and shoot the bad guy a lot. In the immediate terms of your survival of the situation, a gut shot that the bad guy dies from a day later is useless. Also the human body is incredibly strong yet weak. It all depends on who you are. Good guys die from the smallest things and bad guys survive things they shouldnt. Best example is the trooper down south (I believe) who shot the bad guy, who lived, 6 times with his .357 mag in the chest. He was shot with a .22 in the armpit and died.

But you know what, Im sure all the knowledgeable experts here would be super cool headed when they stopped to help a guy change a flat tire and he spins around and opens fire. Yep, it would be a quick Mozambique drill and it would end right there.

As far as the AR vs lever discussion. If you had to take a shot at a guy at 50 yards with your patrol rifle and behind the bad guy was a neighborhood. Is that 30-30 or 45-70 the best choice?

And to say that law enforcement is hugely resistant to change.....are you kidding me? My OPS orders change almost on a monthly basis.

Its late and Im tired. I got in a fight today with a crazy chick who tried to choke me and Im going to bed now.

Double Naught Spy
November 10, 2008, 08:47 AM
"Ever try to fire a lever action while prone? First shot is OK. Second shot, you probably have to roll sideways to work the action."

That's what I mean by the police mentality/tactics need to change.

There are only two reasons why a cop would need a second shot.

1. He missed with the first one and that's his error for not waiting untill he had a shot he could make. His first bullet did no one any good and may have hit an innocent bystander.

2. He engaged multiple armed assailants by himself and from the wrong position and those are his S.W.A.T.zie machismo errors too.

Our police need to leave "bad-looking" black T-shirts and High Noon behind.

So I see you ascribe to the Barney Fife armament of cop patrol rifles. Do you suggest they carry the one round in their shirt pocket like Barney or is your opinion of cops so foul that you think they one round should be carried in an onboard gunsafe?

Shawnee
November 10, 2008, 10:13 AM
Here is The Bottom Line, Gentlemen...

It is NOT OK for our cops to gun down innocent or non-threatening citizens. Not even ONE.

NO excuses. Not even ONE.

There are NO "Ooopsies". Not even ONE.

Ever.


:cool:

rc109a
November 10, 2008, 10:22 AM
I think this post has gone far beyond why police do not use lever actions instead of AR's. As another firearms instructor I have another take on this. We were given our AR's by the military. They did not cost us anything. Since that is what we were given our policy and procedure had to reflect that and state that the only patrol rifle acceptable was the Ar platform in 223. We are allowed to buy our own AR's at our expense. We get some pretty good discounts (the department not the LEO's) and sometimes they fall below those of the lever actions. AR's are easier to shoot for most officers then lever actions. They are easier to keep clean and can be repaired easier. The parts and options are easier to obtain. The AR allows light attatchments and optics if needed without extensive modifications. Most of the officers in our department are ex military and they are familar with this platform (we train monthly on our weapons and it does not always have to include live ammo). You can have this same argument with revolvers and semi-auto pistols. Yes, there are some departments that get carried away. Some departments need more funding just to provide flashlights. I am sure others will continue to argue the point, but I thought I would put out a different view.

rc109a
November 10, 2008, 10:24 AM
Shawnee:
Did anyone on here say it was?

Shawnee
November 10, 2008, 10:55 AM
"Did anyone on here say it was?"


Not outright. But several are defending the tactics and reckless equipment use that produce such fatalities with alarming regularity and that is tacit and clear approval of those fatalities.


Snipe away. I'm done with this thread and again apologize for my part in leading it astray.

:cool:

chad1043
November 10, 2008, 12:42 PM
I'm surprised it took so long for someone like rc109a to post up about the pricing of these rifles. I'm sure they are hugely discounted. After riding along with and shooting with a police officer here in town, I have to say I rather have them have a M4 then a 30-30. If you were in a hostage situation that called for the police to come in, what would you rather them have? I don't know, but I think every department is run a little differently. I know that our department has tactical training a lot. They use real life situations and in the training, cops and people die. When people die they do it all over again and again. They get yelled at, I was there I got hit with a paint pellet and I got to hear the captain yell his head off at the officer who fired with out target recognition.

My hat is off to every policeman or woman who puts his life on the line for my sake.

Chad

Harve Curry
November 10, 2008, 01:08 PM
There was a time when the lever action was state of the art, now it's the AR based firearms. If I was a policeman then I'd opt for a weapon in the trunk or rack that would put me on the same playing field as the bad guys might use against me. It would have to function flawlessly, penetrate body armor, and be capable of 1 MOA accuracy.

kBob
November 10, 2008, 03:01 PM
I have done this arguement from when "the internet" meant GeNe.

One thing that was an issue then was that police need to work inside the community, not over it, to be successful.

The AR platform looks like what it is, a military weapon. This intimidates not only bad guys but good citizens as well.

Looks matter.

The opinion of the public matters.

Many of us these days live in semi rural environments where an LEO might be faced with an angry bull or an injured horse on one shift and the drug runner and dope growers on the next ten acre plot the next day or the street gang in the low cost housing units clustered on the edge of town the next.

I do not think an AR in 5.56mm would be my first choice for an anti half ton quadraped rifle.

I also do not think a "thutty-thutty" would be my first choise for using in the built up areas or even for the LEOs to be firing at those folks three hundred yards away in their "garden"

Different guns for different jobs.

The free former military M16 A1s were not free BTW as they each came with a small charge forthe paperwork and handling as it were. The county my shooting club is in participated in that program.

One of the issues that got the county a new sheriff was the fact that the old one was arming his deputies with "military weapons"

When I was getting my associate with a concentration in Law Enforcement I was young and dumb and full of.....lets not go there. I wrote a paper supproting the dressing of LEOs in black uniforms as it is dark half the time (and local LEOs teneded to white shirts or light tan in thiose days) with boots as those reduce the common ankle injuries of that time and a patrol rifle that was black and bad. (like the LEO mags of the time I loved the AR-180 over the AR15)

Later I went on to a BS in Criminology and believe it or not did a paper on response to terrorism in 1980.

Later I got older. I paid attention.

No question if Bob was going into a un avoidable gunfight, specifics unknown, Bob would much preferr and AR(15 or 180) over a rattling Winchester 94 (what many of the leos in north florida did have in their trunks in the late 1960s through 90)

On the other hand I learned that what the people you deal with think and feel is important.

If your storm trooper uniform and scarry military rifle make the public uncomfortable or even fear you, how much public support can you count on?

If you frighten a potentul information source so they do not tell you what is happening in their neoighbor hood does that help you avoid having to intimidate a bad guy?

LEOs be honest. How many bad guys actually use body armor that can even stop your service hanfgun? How many actually "out gun" you?

Would a less military looking rifle be that much less effective, for instance would a Min 14 in a wooden stock be so less effective than a AR that it would be a bad thing.

Remember that in ten year period eneding about 2004 or so no non Federal LEO made a shot further than 75 yards before you complain about accuracy.

I do not understand the references to the LA bank robbers. Fact is they were basically not hit before the folks with the HK carbines showed up. Infact a couple of the first officers on the scene never fired a shot dispite being closer and having better shots than the ones that did make the few hits. A .30-30 rifle WOULD have ended that fight if weilded by one of the officers willing and capable of shooting had one available.

The move to the ARs in Law Enforcement is mostly fashion. Some times some interesting logic is used to justify the change from less visuallythreating weapons. Our local Rifle Teamamong our Sheriffs department recent went over to commercial AR15s over their existing Minis. (this is not a competative team but those officers on duty at any time with a rifle available and oncall for back up of a non rfle armed LEO or to provide perimiter security for SWAT) The cheif selling point was "the AR15s are easier to keep clean and break down" what?

Trust me I know what it is like when you think public opion places you in positions where you feel the bosses care less for your personal security is less important than public opinion.

No fun.

But sometimes in the long run the public relations means less of the nasty stuff.

I think this is what some of the folks that seem anti cop are trying to say.

Some of them seem actually anti cop.

Its politics, finance and leadership attitudes that will decide what guns LEOs get, not arguements on line.

Those M-16A1s in the county next door? Lowest paid county in FLorida. Deputies had to provide their own weapons. Sheriff found the funds to put an M-16A1 in every car. My problem with his discission was the lack of training time and money devoted to the rifles and shooters. His agency provide a bare minimum ammo to fire semi anual qualifications with and the same amount for practice. Our shooting club members preovided ammo for some of the deputies to shoot in our action shooting events. Some ashamed of being out shot by palsied half blind guys in their 70s with fifty year old revolvers never showed up again. A couple said "Hmm" and stayed around and at least showed up when their patrol duties allowed them to legitamately patrol our range.

LEOs we get here on THR are gun cranks like the rest of us or as some in Law enforcemtn would say "gun F**S" the majority of LEOs are not hobbiest and likely feel their training is just peachy keen. Some even see fire arms training as a chore.

It is easy to see how some folks could be concerned about LEos with little training or desire to get such dashing about with "High capacity magazine fed military rifles"

It is also easy to see how if I was a sworn officer at the moment that regardless of training and ability I would want an AR over grandpa's lever gun or a semi auto pistol caliber carbine, or a mutant pump hunting rifle or a bead sighted 12 gauge pump smoothbore slug gun.

This one has as much potentual for being argued out to a conclussion everyone can agree with than the M-16 verses "Real Rifle" arguement.

let's put it to bed....without its supper.

-Bob Hollingsworth

Blacksmoke
November 10, 2008, 06:03 PM
In the early 1970s I knew a LEO in a small nothern California town who had the foresight to carry a Browning Hi Power when every one else packed a .38 Special or maybe a .357 magnum. In the trunk of his patrol car was a Johnson rifle. I don't know if he ever had to use that Johnson but I sure would not have wanted to be a perp on the run with him after me....

Robert
November 10, 2008, 07:28 PM
As a former LEO with the State Patrol I can only speak to my experience and training. But really a lever rifle... I mean wow... might as well carry a peace maker while you are at it. In the trunk of my car was not only an M-16 but an scoped M-14 as well. When I inquired as to why we had an M-14 in the trunk I was told "cause it goes through a windshield a hell of a lot better than the 5.56". Again I can only speak to my training and experience but we were taught that every round fired counted and that no matter what your intentions were, if someone other than the bad guy were struck you were to be held accountable. Our training in shooting, or not shooting depending on the situation, was more extensive than our driving. And I received more driving training than most 20 people put together.

rc109a
November 10, 2008, 08:13 PM
kBob: Your right the M-16's were not free, we had to pay gas and drive 40 miles to pick them up. Other then that I filled out the paper work and turned it in. A year later we were told to come and get them. You are right on about most LEO's training. They are like other people. They do what is needed and they don't want to do more. I am glad our department is not like that. You have a very good point, and it was made very nice!

litman252
November 10, 2008, 09:46 PM
I'm not sure what to add but will throw in my $.0064 anyway.

I come from a small town of approx. 4K and live in a city of around 30K now. I work in an area that most city's are 45K+ and not far from 1/2 Mill people.

I'm sure some should have the M4'gry, some should have a 30-30 and many do just fine with a 12ga, with correct ammo.

I'd like to think it should be up to the cop, I know, I know, don't bother posting about ammo capatability and all that, it's not perfect.

If it was up to me I'd have a compact carbine w/ the same mags as my sidearm with several mags on an additional belt/vest close by. After that, or if time allowed I'd like a .308ish bolt that was good and accurate.

To each there own, what they are confident, and competent with that is acceptiable to all is ideal, just don't know if it exists.

Best,
Tony

earlthegoat2
November 10, 2008, 10:58 PM
Now, now, sensible questions like that have no room here.

I suppose its because the learning curve with an AR is faster. There is also an intimidation factor I suppose. Black guns are the military and police guns. Lever guns arent tactical enough.

Kind of reminds me when people come into my store asking about bear guns for hunting other species in bear country. I tell them they dont need the 500 SW Mag for 1000+ dollars. What they need is a 45-70 Lever gun for 500 bucks. Then they have a bear gun and any other critter gun in one.

Why would I want one of those? they say.

C-grunt
November 11, 2008, 01:05 AM
Here is The Bottom Line, Gentlemen...

It is NOT OK for our cops to gun down innocent or non-threatening citizens. Not even ONE.

NO excuses. Not even ONE.

There are NO "Ooopsies". Not even ONE.

Ever.

You are correct and if thats happening its something beyond anything you can blame on training or policy. Thats an individual decision there. If blatantly bad shootings are being covered up, you need to talk to your senator or someone about it.

But then again its completely unacceptable for ONE legally armed citizen to gun down an innocent person too. Should we start changing laws and policies on handing out CCW permits because of a few bad incidents?

Sounds very much like the Brady Campaign around here...........

Mauserguy
November 11, 2008, 01:09 AM
Wow, this thread got borderline nasty in places. I certainly never wanted to anybody to insinuate that cops shoot innocent people. Out here, the LAPD can't hit anybody, innocent or guilty. At any rate...

I figured that the discussion would revolve around reloading, reliability etc. I can see that an AR is more ergonomic, and is a better military arm, but I'm not convinced that it is the best all around police rifle. Consider this comparison:

Marlin 1894:
1. Remove from trunk.
2. Work lever.
3. Aim.
4. Fire.
5. Work lever.

AR:
1. Remove from trunk.
2. Remove scope caps.
3. Insert magazine.
4. Remove Magazine, insert right side up.
5. Reinsert magazine after it drops out, having not locked into place.
6. Charge chamber.
7. Aim.
8. Replace battery in red-dot scope.
9. Aim.
10. Flip off safety.
11. Aim.
12. Slap forward assist to fully chamber the round.
13. Aim.
14. Fire.
15. Dissasemble rifle to clear jam.
16. Ressemble rifle.
17. Get Remmington 12 Guage.

Cheers,
Mauserguy

Prince Yamato
November 11, 2008, 01:40 AM
I say you save some money in the town budget by equipping the police with AK-47s. No maintenance or weapons skills required.

Harve Curry
November 11, 2008, 11:21 AM
In re-reading some replies here that are not completely on topic, some are important and go alongside the topic.
From Kbobs post no.72 for example :

"Looks matter.

The opinion of the public matters"

That gets applied to citizens when it comes to the so-called Assault Weapons Bans. We the people can't have arms that look a certain way, and it is police that enforce that injustice upon us.
There has to be a happy medium in firearms and clothing.
The militarization of police in the United States is a recent happening of the last 25 years or so. It's effects are far reaching. One of the things that seperates U.S. from other countries that the U.S. has are laws prohibiting our army from being used against ourselves. Militarzing police is kinda unAmerican to put it politely. So maybe a policeman who wants to use a lever and can qualify with one should be allowed to, no big deal, and congratulations to him/her. Policemen should be able to protect the public and themselves with the small arms available to them within their reach, but appearances do matter in attitude, clothing, and firearms.
But this is all speculation and will never happen because there are to many antis and politians running police departments and educating new recruits..

wheelgunslinger
November 11, 2008, 11:27 AM
That seems reasonable, Harve.

Mauserguy's 17 steps to using an AR will probably ignite a poopstorm of responses, so I just wanted to get my response in before the storm started.

Levers for police? Sure. Browning's BLR has a box mag and can shoot all manner of spitzer type projectiles from it. Pump action rifles for Police? Sure. Why not?

COMPNOR
November 11, 2008, 12:21 PM
Marlin 1894:
1. Remove from trunk.
2. Work lever.
3. Aim.
4. Fire.
5. Work lever.

AR:
1. Remove from trunk.
2. Remove scope caps.
3. Insert magazine.
4. Remove Magazine, insert right side up.
5. Reinsert magazine after it drops out, having not locked into place.
6. Charge chamber.
7. Aim.
8. Replace battery in red-dot scope.
9. Aim.
10. Flip off safety.
11. Aim.
12. Slap forward assist to fully chamber the round.
13. Aim.
14. Fire.
15. Dissasemble rifle to clear jam.
16. Ressemble rifle.
17. Get Remmington 12 Guage.


This sums up my response nicely: :rolleyes:

Shawnee
November 11, 2008, 12:33 PM
"The militarization of police in the United States is a recent happening of the last 25 years or so.....Militarzing police is kinda unAmerican to put it politely."


Need we politely mention.... Waco... and Ruby Ridge ?

How about Kent State ?


:cool:

rc109a
November 11, 2008, 12:54 PM
Shawnee: not sure what your post has to do with lever vice Ar discussion. If it is about military arms being used for police work, then almsot all firearms could fall into that catagory at one point in history.

Barker45
November 12, 2008, 11:41 PM
LEO here. We use COLT ARs (m4s) at work but I keep a 30-30 Marlin in my POV. Don't PooPoo the lever-gun! Other than being in a combat zone OCONUS or a Hollywood-like shootout, the lever will do just fine and the 30-30 packs a punch. My marlin is light, handy, slick as snail poo, and I love it! Oh yeah, I hunt with it too:). I added some excellent XS sights and a leather butt-cuff and called it good. If I could only have 1 rifle it would be my marlin (redneck assault rifle).

I also have a beautiful Colt AR carbine in my safe for zombie but I haven't seen any lately.

HorseSoldier
November 13, 2008, 12:26 AM
Need we politely mention.... Waco... and Ruby Ridge ?

How about Kent State ?

Don't believe any of those involved beat cops armed with any sort of rifle (or no rifle at all), so not sure how it's relevant to the topic at hand. Insofar as we live in a nation where bad guys have access to high capacity, semi-automatic rifles, denying police the tools to deal with the potential threats they may encounter -- not just to themselves, but to the public -- because it produces a psychological distress for some people seems rather inappropriate. (And is a curiously hoplophobic sentiment for gun owners . . .)

I would personally feel differently if someone could point out where assault rifle toting patrolmen were roughing up the populace, involved in unjustified shootings with their patrol carbines. All I've seen in this thread as far as facts are concerned is the fact that only a small fraction of officers seem to be armed with patrol carbines of any sort at all.

scotjute
November 13, 2008, 11:00 AM
Lever-guns would work for police. They would provide a longer range and more powerful round for those situations that called for more than a pistol or shotgun. I see nothing wrong with procurring/using/issuing them as they would serve the purpose. Wouldn't feel like police were undergunned for most situations if they had them. Its what I have at the house. However I'm not expecting a shoot-out with crazed drug lords either.

That said, if I was in charge of a police dept. and could afford it, I'd want my guys to have the best, and the AR-15 type rifle would seem to be the best all-round choice for increased range, more powerful round (but not too powerful), and provide the same fire power as their semi-auto pistols. It just seems logical for police depts. to issue them when they can.

goon
November 13, 2008, 05:55 PM
Shawnee:

Holy cow! Time to listen to some Prozac, man.

I've thought that myself a time or two but not in this case.
He makes some valid points about the militarization of some police agencies.

Lever actions for cops? Why not?
What, exactly, is your average cop shooting at that won't be stopped by a few well placed 170 grain bullets? Is he really planning to miss 29 times before he finally makes a hit count?
And is he really planning to lay cover fire on a suspect? Because as I remember it, cover fire is fire that is pretty much not intended to hit the enemy. You may hit him by accident with it, but its primary function is to reduce his ability to shoot at you. A decent enough idea for a squad of guys who've had the bad luck to stumble head-first into an ambush but probably NOT the best tactic for a cop (or a homeowner for that matter).
I'd even argue that in a semi-rural or rural area where there is the chance of having to stop a large animal, the lever action 30-30 would be a better choice than a standard AR just because of the cartridges they fire.

GRIZ22
November 13, 2008, 06:20 PM
A lot of responses indicate police should not be armed with the EBRs that we want. You're not going to get many fencesitters to our side by insisting citizens should have better armed than the police.

JImbothefiveth
November 13, 2008, 06:33 PM
Marlin 1894:
1. Remove from trunk.
2. Work lever.
3. Aim.
4. Fire.
5. Work lever.

AR:
1. Remove from trunk.
2. Remove scope caps.
3. Insert magazine.
4. Remove Magazine, insert right side up.
5. Reinsert magazine after it drops out, having not locked into place.
6. Charge chamber.
7. Aim.
8. Replace battery in red-dot scope.
9. Aim.
10. Flip off safety.
11. Aim.
12. Slap forward assist to fully chamber the round.
13. Aim.
14. Fire.
15. Dissasemble rifle to clear jam.
16. Ressemble rifle.
17. Get Remmington 12 Guage.
So if I try to use an AR-15, I will instantly become incompetent?:confused:

They would provide a longer range and more powerful round
Which can also be had in a semi-auto, specifically in the AR platform, with such cartridges as the .50 beowolf or 6.5 grendel.


What, exactly, is your average cop shooting at that won't be stopped by a few well placed 170 grain bullets? Is he really planning to miss 29 times before he finally makes a hit count?
And is he really planning to lay cover fire on a suspect?
But if the target is shooting back, a cop's life may depend on his ability to get off a lot of rounds in a short period of time.
And as for the cover fire: If someone starts shooting at you, wouldn't the ability to lay down cover fire be nice?

A lot of responses indicate police should not be armed with the EBRs that we want.
Cops should be allowed to have them for the same reason ordinary, law-abiding people are:because criminals will have them regardless of the law, allowing them doesn't increase crime, and criminals better armed than the general population means more crime.

nzo012
November 14, 2008, 03:49 AM
For those who wonder why someone can shoot 60 or 70 rounds as return fire and miss most, if not all of them...imagine this, you are at the shooting range the whistle is blown to cease fire, you walk down to the hot end of the range where the targets are hanging. You have your gun of choice and have trained with it for years. You have a silver pie tin back at the shooters line you have to hit. Now you face the shooter/shooters and the whistle blows for them to open fire. You may have almost no cover at all. See how many times you hit the pie tin.

It's like being trapped in a room that that no one knows you're there and people are shooting through the walls of the room as target practice. You know they are doing their best to hit you and make you fall dead. That adds a little pressure to your aim. Your brain goes from aim...aim...aim to this could be the last smell, I smell, the last sight, I see and the last thing I hear.

There are many reasons the short CAR rifles are used by LE. They transition well with the basics of semi auto pistols as far as loading and kinda similar handling. Training in tactical movements usually puts the contact team members in a huddle very close to each other in a "Ready Gun" posture. This would be more difficult with a longer barreled .30.30 and tactical reloading would be nonexistent. Assault team members have their eye as close to the rear sight as possible, within 2 to 3 inches away and that is the porthole they look through as they move. The M16/AR15's buffer allows the weapon to be fired with your eye that close to the sight; a .30.30 or .357 Mag or .45 long colt, .44 Mag rifle would not be user friendly in that regard.

Now, you're about to say I meant the everyday patrol cop not specialized S.W.A.T. members. In reality, everyday patrol cops across the nation are being trained to deal with what they call an "Active Shooter" as in the incidents that happen at Columbine High, Virginia Tech, Omaha Ne. Shopping Mall and we could go on and on. The first people to face the heavily armed shooters on a random killing spree is the everyday cop who was in the school parking lot working an accident when the shooting started inside the school. So, it's not outlaw biker clans or groups of renegades terrorizing a friendly town, it is more likely to be a 18 year old who's mixed up and thinks he will be a famous person if he does the unthinkable or a veteran how is suffering from post traumatic stress. History has shown us that they that they are well armed with good weapons and well practiced with them.

I didn't mean to drag on like this, but I just tried to clarify some facts that needed it.

Coronach
November 14, 2008, 04:35 AM
The rationale for the AR for patrol rifles is pretty straightforward:

1. There is a need for rifles in patrol cars. We expect the police to respond rapidly and effectively to incidents like Virginia Tech, Columbine and, when it happens here, Beslan, with swift and decisive action. We've seen what "wait for SWAT" gets you- a lot of dead children. You need the tools to deal with it.

2. Magazine capacity. While having more rounds is no substitute for accuracy, if you're going into a takeover scenario, would you rather have 5 in the tube, or 30 in the mag? Would you then rather reload the tube one at a time, or slap in another magazine of 30?

3. Economy. Fed.gov will practically give you an M16A1, vs. paying for a lever action.

4. Familiarity. Many cops are ex .mil, and they know how to work an M16.

5. Standardization. Just like the Remington 870 was the standard patrol shotgun, the m16/m4/ar pattern rifle is turning into the standard patrol rifle.

6. Ballistics. The .223 round offers good performance in the engagement envelope of the patrol officer, without overpenetration.

7. Flexibility. You can mandate a bare-bones iron-sight rifle/carbine, or you can tacticool it up, depending on need.

8. Ease of use. The gun is a sweetheart to shoot, and is very accurate. This leads to better performance on the part of a rifle-armed officer, assuming adequate training.

Would I feel poorly armed with a Marlin lever action? Nope. Would I prefer it to an M16-pattern rifle? Nope.

BTW, most of the patrol rifles you see are semi-auto. There's not much use for full-auto on patrol. And, I firmly agree that the patrol rifleman MUST be well trained.

Mike

Shawnee
November 14, 2008, 09:51 AM
Hi "NZO..."...

"The first people to face the heavily armed shooters on a random killing spree is the everyday cop who was in the school parking lot working an accident when the shooting started inside the school. "


With this statement of current fact you have underscored one of my primary points, and I thank you.

It is that kind of Cowboy mentality - expecting the "everyday cop" to stage a one-man Pickett's Charge - that I have spoken of as needing to change and brought into at least the 20th century. It's an example of a situation that desperately needs to be re-thought. And it will have to be re-0thought by people who have not been brainwashed by the current LEO Wyatt Earp culture because, without meaning any insult whatsoever, our LEO culture is too deeply entrenched in the 19th century and their Alvin York self-image to correct themselves.

:cool:

benEzra
November 14, 2008, 10:14 AM
It is that kind of Cowboy mentality - expecting the "everyday cop" to stage a one-man Pickett's Charge - that I have spoken of as needing to change and brought into at least the 20th century. It's an example of a situation that desperately needs to be re-thought. And it will have to be re-0thought by people who have not been brainwashed by the current LEO Wyatt Earp culture because, without meaning any insult whatsoever, our LEO culture is too deeply entrenched in the 19th century and their Alvin York self-image to correct themselves.
IMO, the present, more proactive mindset is a reaction against the mindset that gave the Columbine killers free reign--and that was NOT a Wyatt Earp/Alvin York mentality. It was a "that's above my pay grade" mentality, circle the wagons and wait for SWAT, giving the killers 30 minutes to do as they wished with their unarmed teenage victims. In my opinion, the pendulum swung too far in recent years toward "officer safety at all costs" instead of protecting innocent victims from the criminally violent, and I think it is a good thing that the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

Having the first 2 or 4 officers on-scene go confront a murderer ASAP with equipment they have on hand is not an atavistic Wild West throwback, but rather an outgrowth of the observation that sitting back and waiting for SWAT doesn't protect those you are sworn to protect.

Most active shooters in recent years have given up and killed themselves as soon as they encountered any significant opposition; generally speaking, the sooner they are confronted, the better. The Luby's cafeteria murderer shot himself as soon as police finally started shooting back; ditto for the VT loser and many others. And the Trolley Square mall shooter's killings were halted by A SINGLE OFFICER with a compact handgun, who pinned the shooter down until SWAT could arrive and take him out.

Shawnee
November 14, 2008, 10:33 AM
"And the Trolley Square mall shooter's killings were halted by A SINGLE OFFICER with a compact handgun, who pinned the shooter down until SWAT could arrive and take him out."

Which underscores the serious doubt that thirty M16s and the expenditure of 2000 cartridges in 30 seconds is either necessary or desireable.

One cop says every cop in the nation needs to armed/trained to be Rambo on Steroids so an entire squadron of Robocops can be unleashed at a moment's notice and the next cop says only one cop with a Model 10 is all that's needed to "engage".

That's the LEO "forked tongue" that inflates LEO budgets, LEO power, LEO abuse of the Public and perpetuates the failure of American Law Enforcement.

And please - before anyone says there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to police work - stop and remember that LEOs all have the same solution to every problem - "Give us more firepower, more authority, more budget, and more black T-shirts, ie. make us more Militaristic (read Gestapo-istic).

It never fails.

:cool:

JImbothefiveth
November 14, 2008, 11:26 AM
It is that kind of Cowboy mentality
When there's a shooter on a rampage, a lone cop being able to stop him may be matter of life and death for whoever's getting shot at.

Which underscores the serious doubt that M16s are needed
But what if the shooter had been better-trained, and didn't let the cop pin him down with a handgun?

nzo012
November 14, 2008, 11:47 AM
I had to just sit here a moment and think before I replied to Shawnee's comment. I almost just let it go and wrote it off to someone just wanting to start a fight. I don't know what your issues are with authority and I really don't care. You obviously have never been in a situation that requires you to act to preserve life because your responses are absurd.

I have witnessed some of the bravest men of 18 + years old totally disregard their own safety to accomplish incredible acts of heroism. Some have paid for it with lost limbs, lost looks and lost lives. To consider them as Rambos! and Wyatte Earps is absolutely horrendous! To consider a LEO that takes action against a school shooter a Sgt. York is an utter insult!

The difference between them and you is that they are scared to death but they act out of selflessness and I assume by reading your post you would recommend running and hiding.

I don't mean to insult anyone, but you hit a nerve! The purpose of these forms is to share information and enjoy each others knowledge, not to take amateur bashes at topics where professionals fear to tread. I have some experience in how these things are organized and lead, I would be glad to share that, but I will not listen to someone who is posting such negative trash about any peacekeeping force.

When I made reference to the Officer in the school lot taking action, I was referring to someone in general who finds himself in a situation they didn't foresee and having to react through their training and experience even if that is not their specialized field.

benEzra
November 14, 2008, 12:14 PM
Which underscores the serious doubt that thirty M16s and the expenditure of 2000 cartridges in 30 seconds is either necessary or desireable.
And that relates to an officer having one NON-automatic civilian AR-15 in the trunk, how?

Do you really think that issuing a carbine to an officer instead of a handgun would make him/her forget what sights/optics are made for, or what the purpose of a rifle is?

One cop says every cop in the nation needs to armed/trained to be Rambo on Steroids so an entire squadron of Robocops can be unleashed at a moment's notice and the next cop says only one cop with a Model 10 is all that's needed to "engage".
I'm not a cop; I'm a technical writer in the aviation industry. I was merely pointing out that sitting idly by when some nutjob decides to go murder as many people as possible before the police show up is NOT, in fact, a helpful response, one that was justifiably excoriated after Columbine, and that ANY countervailing force in an active-shooter situation (even a single cop with a low-capacity handgun) is better than none. If that officer had a carbine, so much the better.

That's the LEO "forked tongue" that inflates LEO budgets, LEO power, LEO abuse of the Public and perpetuates the failure of American Law Enforcement.
Again, I am not a LEO. But the job of LEO's is not to sit idly by for 30 minutes as innocent teenagers get shot, and then cuff and stuff the shell-shocked survivors when they come out a la Columbine. It is to GO AFTER AND STOP THE KILLER.

And please - before anyone says there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to police work - stop and remember that LEOs all have the same solution to every problem - "Give us more firepower, more authority, more budget, and more black T-shirts, ie. make us more Militaristic (read Gestapo-istic).
And having a civilian AR-15 in the trunk instead of a pump shotgun (or a lever gun, FWIW) has absolutely nothing to do with that mentality.

If you look around the nation, you'll find that the most authoritarian, jackbooted departments are also some of most fearful of AR-15's in non-SWAT hands. Because those departments are the ones who think that centerfire .22's with handgrips that stick out are so dangerous and difficult to shoot that only the most highly trained Jedi ninjas can safely use them.

Harve Curry
November 14, 2008, 01:48 PM
What's a EBR??

QUOTE Shawnee: "And please - before anyone says there is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to police work - stop and remember that LEOs all have the same solution to every problem - "Give us more firepower, more authority, more budget, and more black T-shirts, ie. make us more Militaristic (read Gestapo-istic)."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That's not the rank and file on the street policeman. That is the political career run for office sheriffs, city police chiefs, get appointed again heads of FBI, ATF, leo bueracrats, and so on..

benEzra
November 14, 2008, 02:05 PM
What's a EBR??
"Evil Black Rifle." Humorous term for modern-looking guns that cause gun-404 types to go into hysterics, e.g. AR's, civilian AK's, etc.

Coronach
November 14, 2008, 03:06 PM
It is that kind of Cowboy mentality - expecting the "everyday cop" to stage a one-man Pickett's Charge - that I have spoken of as needing to change and brought into at least the 20th century. It's an example of a situation that desperately needs to be re-thought. And it will have to be re-0thought by people who have not been brainwashed by the current LEO Wyatt Earp culture because, without meaning any insult whatsoever, our LEO culture is too deeply entrenched in the 19th century and their Alvin York self-image to correct themselves.This is absurd.

So, if the cops do what you advise, which is hunker down, hold the perimeter and wait for SWAT, we get Columbine, and an outraged nation wondering how a bunch of armed cops can stand by and allow children to be murdered, and rightly so.

If the first responding officers take on the bad guys, they're engaging in Wyatt Earp mentality and so forth, according to you.

I'll be blunt. I'll face disapproval from you if it means that I saved lives by prudently and capably engaging immediate threats to the safety of others. Somehow, I'll manage to get over it. What I won't be able to get over is the knowledge that I could have done something to save lives, and did not. What I won't be able to get over is the rage of a thousand sets of parents who wondered why I did nothing. But I'll live with your disapproval.

Now, this does not mean that I'm advising that the cops always charge in like Elliot Ness (or Wyatt Earp), but it means that they have to have the option. In the Trolley Square instance, the shooter was pinned down by a CCWing off-duty officer, and within three minutes was killed by responding SWAT officers. Guess what? You're not always that lucky. You usual SWAT call-out takes an order of magnitude longer. I don't know off the top of my head if there just happened to be a couple of SWAT officers nearby or what, but that response time is the exception, not the rule.

Trolley Square is actually an excellent example of how a rifle-armed patrolman can be useful. Look at the ranges involved. Look at the availability of a good backstop (shooting down from above). Look at the odds of taking on a shotgun-armed gunman while armed only with a pistol. Hammond and company were very brave- and very lucky. Obviously, Hammond would not be carrying a rifle in the food court off-duty, but this might have ended even more quickly if his first responding backup had rifles. Heck, I dunno- how many of the patrol officers responding there did have rifles? Some did. They clearly thought there was a need. I concur.

The simple fact of the matter is that having an AR-15 does not turn a single patrol officer into a well-trained one-man assault force. No one is arguing that. However, NOT having an AR-15 does turn an officer into a less-capable threat to the bad guys. With a rifle, you always have the option to hang back and wait for help, if the situation allows, but not having a rifle denies you the option of effectively assaulting the BG when the situation demands that you do.

Can you get by with a lever action in many of these scenarios? Sure. Having any rifle is a huge advantage when the ranges get long, or there is armor (or cover) involved. But the AR-15 is a bigger advantage when you're facing multiple opponents, or otherwise have to shoot multiple times.

Mike

TAB
November 14, 2008, 03:31 PM
you know, I honestly can't think of a time when having a AR would have made much of a diffrence in a mass shooting or terror attack.

Even the bank robery in LA could have been handled with side arms and shot guns... With proper training of corse.( something that the LAPD, clearly did not have)

Coronach
November 14, 2008, 05:33 PM
I dunno. I don't want to go up against a heavily armored and armed pair of bank robbers armed with my sidearm and a shotgun. I'll take a rifle, please. Torso shots at range with a rifle have a lot better probability of success than a headshots at range with a pistol. I'll assume that you know and understand this, and not belabor the point. Just because you CAN do something with an inferior tool is not a reason to HAVE to do it with an inferior tool. By the same logic, you don't need a shotgun or a high capacity handgun to defend your home. A single shot shotgun will suffice. I mean, you can take care of a bunch of bad guys with a single-shot, if you know what you're doing. But, would you want to?

Ditto training, though.

Mike

goon
November 14, 2008, 05:48 PM
I'd much rather be facing a couple aggressors with automatic rifles with at least a lever action 30-30 than a handgun or a shotgun.
The argument that maybe you can handle without a rifle is a moot point.
Would you rather try to handle it with inferior short range weapons while some A-hole chewed your patrol car to pieces with an AK?
Even if you're not a cop just think about it logically. Suppose you know beyond any doubt that there is going to be a mass shooting down at the local supermarket and that it's going to happen in five minutes. The phones are out and you are the only guy who knows about this and can get there in time to stop it. So you run to the gun cabinet and fling the door open.
In front of you is an AR-15, a Remington 870, and a Glock in whatever caliber you like. Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't want the AR?
I know which one I'd be grabbing and it WOULDN'T be the 870.


If you can afford AR's, more power to you. Being able to reload faster and having more rounds available without reloading isn't a bad thing.
But if money is tight or officers are allowed to supply their own long guns why not let them use lever actions?

TAB
November 14, 2008, 05:49 PM
Point is, if the LAPD had been trained in shooting people with body armor, had been allowed to have slugs( they could not at that time) It would have ended very quickly. Besides that, us normal folks in CA can't have Ars, the police should not have them either.

I would actually aprove of an AWB if it had the provision in it that it applied to LEOs as well.

Phil DeGraves
November 14, 2008, 05:52 PM
you know, I honestly can't think of a time when having a AR would have made much of a diffrence in a mass shooting or terror attack.

Even the bank robery in LA could have been handled with side arms and shot guns...

That is ridiculous. Rifles against rifles.

Point is, if the LAPD had been trained in shooting people with body armor, had been allowed to have slugs

In other words, had they been armed with 12ga RIFLES, the situation would have been over quicker. Yes, that is true. However, a rifle always makes a better rifle than a shotgun does. In the B of A robbery, one officer with a bolt action rifle and good position would have been able to end the situation quickly. It is absolute nonsense to take on two guys armed with rifles with your handguns.

TAB
November 14, 2008, 05:53 PM
So since they had MACHINE GUNS... we should give beat cops machine guns. Same argument.

coyotehitman
November 14, 2008, 06:03 PM
Why don't cops use levers?

The same reason they don't use single action revolvers.

Even the bank robery in LA could have been handled with side arms and shot guns
Then why wasn't it handled with sidearms and shotguns, since that is what the first crews on the scene were armed with? Why were rifles brought in? Why did they make a mad dash to the store for rifles as their handgun rounds were bouncing off the body armor?

had been allowed to have slugs( they could not at that time) It would have ended very quickly.

I disagree with that. They would likely have been using bead sighted, smooth bore barrels and foster slugs, under stress from full auto rifle fire. Hit probability would have been in the crapper aiming at center mass, let alone taking headshots.

TAB
November 14, 2008, 06:06 PM
Did you watch the news video?

some of the shots were with in 10 ft. Its was lack of training the was the prob, not the weapons at hand.

coyotehitman
November 14, 2008, 07:30 PM
Its was lack of training the was the prob, not the weapons at hand.

Training may have played a factor, weapons definintely played a factor, as did other issues. Tab, I do not know your background or experience level, but making a head shot on a moving target, under stress, and dodging bullets, is not an easy task.

TAB
November 14, 2008, 07:31 PM
who said anything about a head shot? 4 cops in a car all less then 15 ft away and only 1 of them got a shot off... if thats not a training issue, I don't know what is.

JImbothefiveth
November 14, 2008, 09:12 PM
who said anything about a head shot?
The robbers were wearing body armor, so a body shot would not work, unless they had rifles or possibly slugs.

COMPNOR
November 14, 2008, 09:52 PM
Seems a lot of the arguements against arming cops with ARs could be applied to well us.

I mean, you don't need that 17 round magazine for your pistol do you? You're not expecting to lose all 17 rounds while walking done a dark alley. So lets cap it at 10.

Perhaps just holding that AR makes you feel like a Rambo, John Wayne, Wyatt Earp or whoever you want to be so we should keep it out of our hands.

Honestly, the arguments have been pretty silly. So lets just give no one(police or us) guns at all! And then just the bad guys will have them.:rolleyes:

Shade00
November 14, 2008, 11:45 PM
I'm no cop, but my best friend of 21 years is - and in Shreveport, LA. Right now he's only carrying his issue sidearm (a Glock 22) and a Walther PPK as a backup. I'd love to see him carrying ANY long gun - if things work out I plan to give him at least a shotgun for a Christmas gift. I'd love to hand him an AR-15, but can't be that generous right now. However, I probably would feel better with him having a good ol' Marlin 336 - or even a Marlin 1894 in .357.

If I were a policeman, I'd probably feel adequately armed with a lever gun. But hey, I understand that shot placement trumps having a ridiculous number of rounds, and even many police officers don't understand that.

goon
November 15, 2008, 01:51 AM
Seems a lot of the arguements against arming cops with ARs could be applied to well us.

I mean, you don't need that 17 round magazine for your pistol do you? You're not expecting to lose all 17 rounds while walking done a dark alley. So lets cap it at 10.

Perhaps just holding that AR makes you feel like a Rambo, John Wayne, Wyatt Earp or whoever you want to be so we should keep it out of our hands.

Honestly, the arguments have been pretty silly. So lets just give no one(police or us) guns at all! And then just the bad guys will have them.

It's not the rifle being issued to cops I'd have the problem with. That idea actually makes a hell of a lot of sense. If the cop is trying to keep me and mine alive I'd certainly want him to have something more than a Glock.
Having 30 rounds on hand RIGHT NOW is fine with me. And if the officer only has time to grab the rifle at least he still has 30 rounds to deal with the problem.
But before someone mentioned cover fire. Although I understand that cops do find themselves in dangerous situations I just don't see how that would be an appropriate use for the extra firepower. It doesn't make sense to walk into a building where someone is spraying the place down with lead and respond to that attack by spraying some of your own lead around. Bullets don't care what they hit. They'll do the job on the shooter or on a pregnant teen with equal efficiency. The victim will still be just as dead whether the bullet comes from the shooter's gun or from yours.
I'm not a cop but it seems to me that from a liability standpoint even thinking about cover fire should be enough to just about put you in cardiac arrest. So it would seem that whether you're carrying an AR or a lever action, you'd better be paying attention to every round you send downrange.
So for you guys who are or have been LEO's, you'll probably be the best ones to answer this:
How many rounds are usually expended from a rifle when it's used? Because if it's less than six or seven rounds, wouldn't a lever action do just about as well as a semi-auto?

Coronach
November 15, 2008, 02:27 AM
It's a training issue for sure (most things are), but it's also a tool issue. It is easier to hit with a rifle, period. Rifles hit harder, period. If I had the choice of going up against two machine-gun armed criminals with my sidearm and a 12 gauge pump gun loaded with slugs, or with an AR-15 and a spare magazine, I know which one I'm going to chose. This argument borders on the absurd. It's the better tool for the job. I can unscrew a flat-head screw with a butter knife, but I'll do a better job with a screwdriver. When "doing a bad job" means an increased chance that the wrong people die, I want the best tool for the job.

So since they had MACHINE GUNS... we should give beat cops machine guns. Same argument.Only in the most facile sense. Criminals don't own the rounds they spray (or rather, they do, but they don't care). Cops own every round that comes out of that gun and heads downrange. I think most people who have done the job of patrol officer will tell you that there is no need for full-auto for that very reason. The advantages that the rifles give you are range, power, penetration of armor and magazine capacity, not volume of fire in the full-auto sense.you know, I honestly can't think of a time when having a AR would have made much of a diffrence in a mass shooting or terror attack.Let's go with the most obvious one, Columbine. The school resource officer was on scene with a cruiser and traded shots with Harris outside of the cafeteria prior to most of the bloodshed. Harris had a long gun, Gardner (the resource officer) had his sidearm, and the exchange took place at some distance. Neither party was struck. Had Gardner been properly armed and trained, Harris might have been whacked before it got as bad as it did.

In any scenario like this where an officer responded with a handgun, his response would probably more effective with a rifle.

Mike

HorseSoldier
November 15, 2008, 02:31 AM
Because if it's less than six or seven rounds, wouldn't a lever action do just about as well as a semi-auto?

I'd say put them on a PACT timer, in the hands of officers of varying skill levels with long guns, and see how they do on both time and accuracy. I suspect that even if you chambered the lever gun for a pretty light caliber (like .38 Special, rather than a rifle cartridge), the simple mechanics of auto loader versus manually cycled gun would give you superior results in terms of both speed and accuracy.

Coronach
November 15, 2008, 02:31 AM
How many rounds are usually expended from a rifle when it's used? Because if it's less than six or seven rounds, wouldn't a lever action do just about as well as a semi-auto?Dunno. It is fairly small, usually. Same with handguns, usually.

It's the unusual ones that get you.

Seriously? For most situations a lever action would work just fine. Basically, a shotgun loaded with slugs is the same sort of thing. But what happens where you run into the takeover scenario that we all fear (gunmen in a mall or school) and we suspect is coming, and you're the first responders with your lever actions?

Mike

Double Naught Spy
November 15, 2008, 08:00 AM
Seriously? For most situations a lever action would work just fine. Basically, a shotgun loaded with slugs is the same sort of thing. But what happens where you run into the takeover scenario that we all fear (gunmen in a mall or school) and we suspect is coming, and you're the first responders with your lever actions?

In fact, for the vast majority of situations, cops don't even need guns. For most situations, SWAT teams are not needed, etc. However, rifles and SWAT are used for most situations and they are often employed in the least ideal of situations where skimping is a bad thing.

As for the notion of cops not being trained well enough, maybe so. I still haven't figured out what training program would involve rolling up on the suspect at the N. Hollywood robbery and having him turn and open full auto fire on you from such a short range that you would be able to return controlled fire at the start of the engagement as TAB is suggesting. Heck the cops in the squad didn't even know they were rolling up on the bad guy until the last moment (according to interviews).

Yes, all cops should be super trained. Nobody wants to pay for it.

goon
November 15, 2008, 01:00 PM
But what happens where you run into the takeover scenario that we all fear (gunmen in a mall or school) and we suspect is coming, and you're the first responders with your lever actions?


Well...
What happens if you're the first responders to a school take-over and you have AR's. Lets go a step further and say that you have highly accurate, well accessorized, utterly reliable AR's with stacks of loaded magazines on hand.
Even if you have that you're still going to be facing an entrenched force with hostages. They know which way you're coming from and they'll be watching for you. They'll have cover and you won't. IIRC, back in my youth there was a figure tossed around that you may need up to nine times as many attackers as defenders to take an entrenched position - and that's with the benefit of just spraying the whole freakin' place down with lead and explosives (Army style). Cops can't do that because they have to play by different rules.
I'd say that this is probably more than the "average" handful of cops can handle anyway, regardless of what they're armed with.

COMPNOR
November 15, 2008, 01:10 PM
Because if it's less than six or seven rounds, wouldn't a lever action do just about as well as a semi-auto?


Then only issue 10 round magazines. There ya go, problem solved.

I mean, limiting the ammunition is the same arguement that the anti's try to use on us, so why turn around and try and us it on the cops?

Like I said, you don't really need those 17-round magazines do you? When confronted with a threat, and because you know how important shot placement is, you could do the job in 1 or 2 shots. So really, limiting you to 10 rounds a magazine is more than generous.

As for the cover fire arguement, I think it would depend on the situation. I don't see cops "spraying and praying" towards a bad guy when they know he's got an innocent for a shield, or a group of them right behind them. Nor do I see them providing cover fire to the rear when the bad guy is to the front. I mean really, come on. Use some common sense.

woodybrighton
November 15, 2008, 01:17 PM
ARs are cheap if you buy in bulk cheaper still if you can get them via the US goverment.
simple reliable ex military types will already be trained as will swat types so they can train the patrolmen. looks tacicool so might intimidate somebody into not starting something.
its reasonably low recoil while hitting hard and accurate if your a big department your swat team already have ars in the inventory so spares and an armorer to fix them

Coronach
November 15, 2008, 01:18 PM
Well...
What happens if you're the first responders to a school take-over and you have AR's. Lets go a step further and say that you have highly accurate, well accessorized, utterly reliable AR's with stacks of loaded magazines on hand.
Even if you have that you're still going to be facing an entrenched force with hostages. They know which way you're coming from and they'll be watching for you. They'll have cover and you won't. IIRC, back in my youth there was a figure tossed around that you may need up to nine times as many attackers as defenders to take an entrenched position - and that's with the benefit of just spraying the whole freakin' place down with lead and explosives (Army style). Cops can't do that because they have to play by different rules.
I'd say that this is probably more than the "average" handful of cops can handle anyway, regardless of what they're armed with.The current idea/belief is that any organized takeover scenario will be like Beslan, a suicide misssion. If you allow them time to set up inside (read: if you secure the perimter and wait for SWAT), everyone inside is going to die. If you hit them while they are still consolidating their hold on the building, people are still going to die, but it will not be as many.

Yes, this is terrible, body-bag math. But it is reality.

Add in the fact that the VAST majority of the active-shooters end their rampage when confronted with armed resistance (often by suicide, as at VT, but often enough by effective fire, as at Trolley Square), the choice becomes more clear: be aggressive enough, swiftly enough. That spells R I F L E to me.

Mike

goon
November 15, 2008, 02:37 PM
Then only issue 10 round magazines. There ya go, problem solved.

I mean, limiting the ammunition is the same arguement that the anti's try to use on us, so why turn around and try and us it on the cops?

Like I said, you don't really need those 17-round magazines do you? When confronted with a threat, and because you know how important shot placement is, you could do the job in 1 or 2 shots. So really, limiting you to 10 rounds a magazine is more than generous.

As for the cover fire arguement, I think it would depend on the situation. I don't see cops "spraying and praying" towards a bad guy when they know he's got an innocent for a shield, or a group of them right behind them. Nor do I see them providing cover fire to the rear when the bad guy is to the front. I mean really, come on. Use some common sense.


No offense man, but go back and re-read what I said.
I didn't bring up the issue of "spray and pray" as you call it - actually no one did because that's not what cover fire is. But someone farther back did mention cover fire as an AR selling point. For military applications, sure. For LE use, not so much.
I also would never expect people under stress to not miss because it is going to happen. But there are consequences to missing if you're a cop (or if you're a private citizen). If one of your misses kills an innocent you're probably in a world of hurt. Plus it's counter productive to go around killing people when you're supposed to be there to save them. Following that logic, don't you think it would be a good idea to stop the attacker without missing a half-dozen times?
On the magazine capacity, I don't recall saying anywhere that cops are too irresponsible/stupid/poorly trained to be trusted with a 30 round magazine. Nor did I say that AR's and their like shouldn't be issued.
What I did say was that a lever action rifle will probably serve about as well as an AR most of the time. I can't think of any compelling reason to NOT to use one if that's what you have.
If you can afford an AR and a stack of mags or if your dept issues them, more power to you.

Coronach - I hear what you're saying and I suppose you're right that it would be better to go in on your own than to sit tight and wait for help.
My point is that even with the best training and equipment available, if the enemy is waiting for you and knows where you're coming from then he has a serious advantage. He'll take up a position behind cover and engage you as soon as he sees you. You and yours will be more exposed and will probably provide a target rich environment for him. Without the benefit of someone laying all kinds of cover fire and explosives on them (since you're not the military), your guys will probably all get killed or incapacitated before you can do anything productive. Either that, or when he suspects that he's about to be overtaken he'll just execute his plan and take out as many hostages as possible.
Damned if you do and damned if you don't. As you say, the math of the situation indicates that there is no way to win.

OTOH, I am more than less an amateur. My training wasn't that extensive and it's been awhile so maybe I've missed something.

COMPNOR
November 15, 2008, 04:08 PM
to be trusted with a 30 round magazine. Nor did I say that AR's and their like shouldn't be issued.
What I did say was that a lever action rifle will probably serve about as well as an AR most of the time. I can't think of any compelling reason to NOT to use one if that's what you have.


And that's fine. But when you bring up ammo count, and you did because you said if its only 6 or 7 rounds why not a lever gun, it does make it sound like you care about the number they get and not that actual usage.

So, thanks for clarifying.

As for the cover firing, I still think its a mountain out of a mole hill. Its application might be limited in the civilian sector, but I can still see it having its uses.

Of course, my training is military, which is different.

benEzra
November 15, 2008, 08:02 PM
My point is that even with the best training and equipment available, if the enemy is waiting for you and knows where you're coming from then he has a serious advantage. He'll take up a position behind cover and engage you as soon as he sees you. You and yours will be more exposed and will probably provide a target rich environment for him. Without the benefit of someone laying all kinds of cover fire and explosives on them (since you're not the military), your guys will probably all get killed or incapacitated before you can do anything productive. Either that, or when he suspects that he's about to be overtaken he'll just execute his plan and take out as many hostages as possible.
A Columbine is much more likely than a Beslan, and in the former case interrupting the killers' plans to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible (even if it's by making them engage you instead) only saves lives. The killers were not fortified, and were focused on killing as many victims as possible before the police engaged them; the sooner the police show up, the sooner that plan is interrupted.

Archie
November 15, 2008, 09:27 PM
Allow me to re-present my questionable credentials:
I've been a federal lawman for about 26 years now. I am still on active duty as a federal lawman. I was a Border Patrol Agent for about six years, long ago. I've worked built-up inhabited areas and I've worked empty, dusty deserts. I've worked in concert with as many as five other agents very close and I've worked all by my very lonesome in the middle of that empty, dusty desert I mentioned (closest backup about thirty minutes out). Prior to that, I was a Marine for four years; the first two years were 1969-1971 as an Infantryman. I was never in Vietnam, but we played cowboys and Indians a lot, just in case.

May I point out police work and military activities are not the same? Not only the goals are different, but the techniques and rules of engagement are different as well.

In one posting, someone mentioned 'cover fire'. In police work? 'Cover' or 'suppression' fire is the practice of firing large amounts of ammunition in an effort to confuse and intimidate the opposing forces in a firefight. One poster mentioned the North Hollywood Bank event. Use of 'suppression fire' in that event could have easily blown out most of the windows in the buildings downrange from the shooting scene, and quite likely killed or wounded any number of innocent bystanders in those buildings or on the streets. 'Cover' fire is used in warfare, not police work. Not in responsible police work in the United States, at any rate.

Domestic police work cannot include a doctrine of "...slay them all, the Lord will recognize His own..." Not under any sort of policing the United States populace desires or any decent lawman wants. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to justify wanton and reckless firing in populated areas. I'll listen, but it better be good.

Changing subtopic:
Most of the AR-15/M-16 rifles in police departments are the result of U. S. government 'aid' programs, based on surplus equipment on hand. For rifles, that usually means M-16s. As mentioned, they are well known and the maintenance in terms of parts and information is reasonably wide-spread. The matter - as happens in great measure - depends on finances. Surplus M-16s are simply cheap and available.
One poster claims the M-16 is a superior fighting weapon than a lever gun. I'm not sure I agree. Yes, they are probably easier to maintain over time. However, I'll not agree they are easier to shoot accurately or quickly. I have found the pistol grip feature is contrary to fast acquisition of the rifle and target acquisition. The straight grip and direct profile of the typical lever gun makes it handle much faster it getting on target, or acquiring multiple targets.
The .223 Remington/5.56x45 NATO round is pretty short on horsepower. Yeah, it's got what seems to be a high level of kinetic energy. However this is based on the high muzzle velocity of the round. This velocity gets lost rather quickly as the bullet goes downrange. Since 'energy' is based on the square of the velocity, energy is also lost at the square of the velocity lost. A .30 WCF round can be used to take deer out to 125 yards or so. I know of no reputable hunter who would take a shot at a deer at 125 yards with a .223 Remington. This difference in energy doesn't seem to bother the 'deciders' in the U. S. Armed Forces. But they don't seem to think rifle fights happen at any great distance, and they seem to think human targets at ranges over fifty or sixty yards or so are handled by machinegun fire. Also, in a battle zone application one can shoot multiple shots at a hostile. That assumption does not hold true in law enforcement applications.
I think the AR-15/M-16 as used by the U. S. Armed Forces simply stinks. It's too short for a spear and too flimsy for a club. The action is self-dirtying and the round is suitable for animals of fifty pounds or less that don't attack.


Training?
Another 'curious' comment made was in regard to using a lever gun in a fight. The comment was '… people tend to take the rifle out of the shoulder to operate the lever…' or words to that effect. What makes that something proper training will not cure? Any trainer who allows his students to do so (remove rifle from shoulder while working action) isn't much of a trainer. On the other hand, all firearms training includes shooting multiple rounds at a single target, oftentimes emptying the gun in the process. (Hand gun or rifle.)

Changing tack again:
Shotguns are wretched for law enforcement work. They are simply too sloppy in delivery. Slugs from a smooth bored gun are still sloppy and frankly, hurt to shoot.

Conclusion:
I think some form of long gun is indicated for law enforcement. If I were the Emperor, I'd go for some form of carbine, possibly semi-automatic, and in a caliber with more weight and less velocity than .223 Remington and less weight and more velocity than .45-70. Actually, the obsolete .351 Winchester round would be a good compromise. Perhaps a variation of .35 Remington?
I would personally go for a Ruger Mini 30 over an AR. The 7.62x39 round is better for fighting people than 5.56 NATO ever thought of being. A Ruger Ranch Rifle in .35 Remington would be even better in my mind. With my old eyes, I'd like a holographic type aiming device.

But of the two under discussion, I'd feel much better with a Marlin lever gun in .30 WCF than an M-16. What one needs as a lawman in a firefight is the ability to remove the threat with no inconvenience to the general public as quickly as possible. Don't confuse that with the ability to shoot a lot at one time.

goon
November 15, 2008, 10:41 PM
A Columbine is much more likely than a Beslan, and in the former case interrupting the killers' plans to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible (even if it's by making them engage you instead) only saves lives. The killers were not fortified, and were focused on killing as many victims as possible before the police engaged them; the sooner the police show up, the sooner that plan is interrupted.

In that case, wouldn't a lever action still be adequate for drawing the bad guy's attention and/or stopping him?


Archie - thanks for sharing your experience.

Coronach
November 15, 2008, 11:19 PM
A Columbine is much more likely than a Beslan, and in the former case interrupting the killers' plans to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible (even if it's by making them engage you instead) only saves lives. The killers were not fortified, and were focused on killing as many victims as possible before the police engaged them; the sooner the police show up, the sooner that plan is interrupted.In that case, wouldn't a lever action still be adequate for drawing the bad guy's attention and/or stopping him?Depends. Is it better than a handgun? Absolutely. Better than a shotgun, yes, though the difference is smaller assuming you have a shotgun set up properly for at-range work, it likes the slugs you feed it, and you have trained with it to an adequate level. None of those are givens, btw, and most of them are routinely violated.

However, let's assume that you have three jerkweed emo kids shooting up the school (quite a reasonable scenario). This will give you how many rounds per target before you have to reload, and how long will that reload take, and how much slower will your shots be than with a semi-auto AR? Why do the job with a tool that is merely adequate for most situations (and woefully inadequate for some), when you can use a tool that is about as good as you can get for everything from simple gun runs on up to a scene of mass pandemonium, like Beslan?

I mean, I agree that the lever gun will work for most things. But its only advantage is relative economy. In everything else it is adequate, at best. The AR is a much better solution, unless you're really cash-strapped. Some places are, of course, and that brings up an even easier solution: allow officers to purchase their own ARs, to department spec. Cost to the taxpayer? $0.

Mike

Phil DeGraves
November 17, 2008, 12:31 PM
So since they had MACHINE GUNS... we should give beat cops machine guns. Same argument.

No, it is not the same argument. It is a RANGE issue. Rifles are easier to shoot more accurately at greater range and are also more likely to penetrate the body armor that the bad guys had.
Obviously, since I have to explain this to you, your mind is made up and facts will make no difference.

If you enjoyed reading about "Levers For the Cops" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!