It isnt police bashing to question the purchase of equipment which has no conceivable law enforcement use. Even the military use of these weapons is a small niche.
Just a few years ago, street cops supposedly didn't need rifles. Just why would a street cop need a rifle if he has a pistol and possibly even a shotgun? After a bunch of tough lessons of cops being bested by greater firepower, many departments now issue rifles such as AR15s. Dallas stated this recently as well after an incident with bank robbers with fully auto guns managed to successfully get away from the cops (later caught, however) via suppressive fire and disabling the chase cars of the police.
I have no idea what you mean by the military having .50 BMG weapons as a small niche. If you mean only single shot or semi-auto, then sure enough, the niche is somewhat limited to snipers, just like their other sniper rifles. Since the other sniper rifles are a small niche, maybe cops should not have them either?
Since when did niche size determine usefulness. The small niche size may mean infrequent need, but not lack of need.
As for other .50 BMG in the military, such as in Browning machineguns, they are extensively used and in one capacity, you can see them mounted on hummers. If you watch closely, you will see some Barretts mounted on hummers also.
You need thousands of dollars worth of ammo and lots of time at 1000+ yard ranges to train someone to take advantage of the extra capabilities the 50 BMG brings to the table. Per person.
This is just plain wrong. First, just because the gun has effective fire out beyond 1000 yards does not mean it should only be used at such ranges. .308 rifles can by shot by snipers out to 1000 yards and beyond, but rarely do police snipers shoot beyond 100 yards in real life events. Dallas PD trains their snipers to 600 yards, but like I said, they rarely shoot anywhere near that distance in real life. So once again, maybe we need to trash .308 sniper rifles as well?
As for the thousands of dollars in ammo per person to train, that might be the case if the person has never shot a long gun, but certainly isn't the case for somebody skilled in long gun shooting. The skills need to shoot a .50 BMG single shot or semi-auto are no different than for shooting other propped weapons such as rifles on bipods. The biggest differences are in trajectory considerations but as with .308 sniper rifles, those differences of tranjectory can be overcome with the proper scope dope.
Given the increase of defensive capabilities of well prepared bad guys who incorporate body armor and full auto guns, it is just a matter of time before they wise up and use armored vehicles. A .308 isn't likely to stop them.
I do appreciate the theoretical scenarios you propose. Apparently though, the Dallas PD did not think they were very likely to happen or else they would have already owned those rifles.
Untrue or at least untrue at the conflict level. As noted, they only recently started allowing AR15s for street use. While many of the officers have made requests for rifles over the years, the higher ups did not think they were needed. It was not that the cops needed rifles only after the bank robbery with the guns with full auto guns. They have needed them for years. Nobody was willing to sign off on them.
The reason to buy or not to buy equipment obviously isn't being made based solely on need. After all, cops didn't need to be incinerated in their Crown Vics, but Crown Vics were bought for them. When it comes to their handguns, how do you think the decision is made as to what handgun Dallas cops need? In recent years they have gone from Glocks to Berettas to Sigs. Are they goind with Sigs because there is no need for the Berettas? Nope. They just got a better deal from Sig. The decision was based on administrative budgeting, not officer survival.
So please, I ask of you, can you tell me of an incident when a 50 caliber rifle would have changed the outcome of the situation? Are you sure the situation would not have been handled just as well with a 308 or even 223?
Turn that around a bit. Why .308 when you could have .223? Can you tell me of an incident when a .308 rifle would have changed the outcome of the situation. Are you sure the situation would not have been handled just as well with a .223?
Is Dallas so broke that they can't afford a few guns? I mean two .50s plus scopes should be nowhere near as expensive as a single car..
No, Dallas isn't that broke, but as noted, a .50 would be a limited application tool. It would be hard to justify that expense at the administrative level.
As for the AR15s, Dallas made a deal with Rock River. X guns were supplied to patrol officers who qualified with the AR15 and a deal was made for any other Dallas cop to be able to get a special reduced price to buy one to carry on patrol after qualifying with it. Dallas did not have the money to buy an AR15 for every patrol officer, that is true, but what large department does?
) but since these were gifts from a private group, I'm failing to see the controversy.