Does this sound like a good police rifle?

[nico]

Like others have said, there is no conceivable situation where police would need to have a light machine gun.

While we're on the topic of unnecessary police guns, I'm still trying to figure out what the MD state police needs a few Barret M82s

 

[Stretchman]

I don't want a B A R, Honey....

Something my mom used to sing when I was a kid...

Can't remember the rest of the words. Maybe some old timers do.

Stretch
Quit cigs 1M 1D 20h 41m ago. So far saved $197.17, 1,314 cigs not smoked and counting ...

 

[Coronach]

Totally inappropriate. Too expensive, too powerful for patrol use in any but the most rural of settings (think 'overpenetration' and 'maximum realistic engagement distance'), and I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single use for FA capability in a civilian patrol rifle.

Now, a M14 (with no selector) if you're out in the boonies? Perfectly fine. An M16 (no FA) in an urban setting? Also fine. Both are available to PDs for less than the weapon the OP specified, via DHS.

Mike

 

[Jeff White]

There is no police need for a fully automatic weapon. In fact there are very few military uses for hand held automatic fire.

There are no situations where the police would need to put down suppressive fire. The police operate in a secure environment. No where in the US do we need automatic fire to gain fire superiority in a meeting engagement, nor do we need automatic fire to break contact.

Like Coronach said, the M14 platform is too big and powerful for patrol use. I turned down M14s from our state's LESO coordinator and waited to get M16A1s for my agency through the 1033 program. The state coordinator had several M14s that were available immediately because they were already in the state, and the agencies that originally aquired them from DOD didn't want them. They discovered just what Coronach said.

Jeff

 

[Limeyfellow]

I guess if your police patrols included the likes of Haifi in Iraq there might be a use of a LMG, but then you might want to take the military along with you too.

I hate to have to fire .308 full automatic out of a 9-10ib rifle with a 16 inch barrel. Theres a reason the BAR and other LMGs that fired the same round fully automatic weighed in at closer to 20ibs and were much longer.

 

[B.D. Turner]

I see no need of a full auto .308 for general police use.
I do however see the need for a patrol rifle in the hands of officers working rural areas where your backup may be at home in bed or another county away. The shotgun is next to useless to the rural officer. I have worked many times when I was the only deputy in the county. I know a NC trooper that was pinned down years ago by a man with a Marlin model 60 .22 in a rural community. His back up was a long way off and he was lucky to get away with his life. Even with close backup things can go wrong as in the North Hollywood bank robbery. Officers were armed with shotguns that were not effective on the armored suspects.

 

[boerseun]

Many cops in S. Africa are issued R4 and R5 rifles - copies of the Galil. That's because they often face criminals with AK47's.

Here in the states, most criminals are armed with handguns and police respond with hand guns. Every squad car SHOULD have at least a SMG or 5.56 SEMI auto rifle. Can anyone say SU16?

Look at the shootout in North Hollywood - if they had 1 5.56 there, it would have ended the situation. No need for a full auto 7.62x51 battle rifle. A rifle with a fairly straight stock, like the M1A, will climb like a demon on FA. Add a true pistol grip and it would add a bit more control, but will still take many hours of training to keep it on target. As mentioned, liability would be an issue.

Maybe a mini 14 or 30 instead of an M1A.

 

[Wes Janson]

A few years ago Kokalis had a rather amusing commentary in Police Magazine about a local sheriff's office wanting to buy a Ma Deuce, and all of the numerous reasons why such an idea is/was utter insanity. Certain comments on the lack of need for law enforcement agencies to have weapons which are intended to create a beaten zone, were quite funny.

On the other hand, while I'm not a LEO, I could see how on very rare occasions it might be nice to have burst capability on an AR. *Maybe*

 

[Correia]

It's true that the m-14 was fased out due to the control issues of a .308 or .30/06(the originals were /06 but apparently they killed to well for the military), so why didn't they just put a 3rd burst on it. the 14s still used by elite units because it's got the power, rang, and accuracy of a sniper rifle with the ability to go auto. it'd be a lot better with 3 round burst!

Sorry, I've just got to pick this one apart.

(the originals were /06 but apparently they killed to well for the military),

Nope. The M14 was always .308. The original load was very close the the 30-06 load that it replaced, but due to newer, more efficient powders, the case was shorter, and could be in a shorter action. I have no idea how 30-06 killed too well for the military... In case you're thinking about that whole 5.56 wounds them, and two other guys have to take them out of battle, that is, and has always been bunk, and was not one of the design parameters at all.

it'd be a lot better with 3 round burst!

I don't know of anybody who actually prefers 3 round burst to FA. I've got a couple of guns that are 3 round burst capable, and it is pretty useless. Rapid aimed semi gets you about the same results, and it isn't as good as FA. When you really want/need FA, 3 round doesn't cut it. So not as good as single, not as good as FA.

Does anyone issued an A2 actually like the 3 round burst?

I hear it rocks on Counterstrike though.

 

[Jeff White]

lowes79 said;

the 14s still used by elite units because it's got the power, rang, and accuracy of a sniper rifle with the ability to go auto. it'd be a lot better with 3 round burst!

The sniper rifle version of the M14, the M21 was phased out because it required too much armorer support to keep it firing accurately enough to meet the standards.

What's an elite unit and how do you know why it chooses it's equipment?

Jeff

 

[Geronimo45]

"the 14s still used by elite units because it's got the power, rang, and accuracy of a sniper rifle with the ability to go auto."
Range and availability means a good bit. They already had M-14s in the inventory, and they do have longer effective range than 5.56... the M-14 had a bad rep for uncontrollability in full-auto from the get-go. One of the reasons the M16 came along - 'cause they decided that they needed a FA rifle that was controllable. The BAR worked at that - but it also weighed in at 20lbs.

For very wide-open spaces, an M14 might be a good choice - forest rangers who might need critter medicine, Border Patrol, etc. Your average cop probably doesn't need to be engaging at M14 distances (lawyers would tear him up for it in a lot of cases - trouble enough with that already). A police sharpshooter, maybe - though he'd probably opt for a bolt gun. I reckon that an AR-15 type of rifle is plenty of gun for the majority of police duties.

 

[Coronach]

While we're on the topic of unnecessary police guns, I'm still trying to figure out what the MD state police needs a few Barret M82s

1. A few years back a nutjob in Colorado welded steel plate to a bulldozer and went to town. Caused quite a mess. A .50 cal would have solved things nicely.

2. Recently on one of the many SWAT shows springing up on TV (yes, yes, I know ) they had a hostage situation involving a tractor-trailer. They had intended to put a sniper with a .50 BMG rifle on an overpass and take out the tractor's engine, thus turning a rolling hostage mess into a static one. They ultimately decided (probably wisely) not to take the shot, as there were a lot of knuckleheads gathered along the opposite side of the highway, watching the slow-speed chase, and they didn't want the risk of a ricochet or shrapnel taking out a rubbernecker. (Safety fore and aft was assurred by both the angle of the shot and the fact that there was nothing on the highway but the rig and a veritable parade of cruisers).

3. Every now and again, some idiot steals a bus/truck/tractor/combine, and proceeds to cut a swath of destruction through an urban neighborhood. A well-placed .50 BMG round will usually stop an engine.

Will lesser rounds also serve to instantaneosuly disable a large engine? I have no idea, but I know that a .50 BMG can, if properly placed. That is what the agencies have them on hand for.

Mike

 

[Limeyfellow]

The coastguard does use a .50 cal to take out boat engines of those running drugs or people on speed boats that are faster then cutters.

I would think though that should be limited if the police have it at all as a swat style weapon for very rare occasions as a .50 could also shoot straight through your block. You might as well use AP .308s to obtain a similar effect.

 

[8830]

It would be a good county sheriff or state police rifle where they patrol outside the city limits and have more open range to shoot them on.

 

[gunny1022]

The BAR and the short barrell Monitor has a buffer system in the stock that absorbs recoil. That and the weight allowed an instructor to put his nose again the butt-plate and empty a 20 round magazine with no issue. They need to bring it back. Marines had three BARs in each 13 man squad. Army had one.

 

[JShirley]

As zinj and Chindo said, the weight is significantly different. The M14 is the least successful rifle in US history, at least as a gen issue item. One of the reasons is the lack of controllability- cutting the barrel back would make it even less controllable.

Glockfan, there is no such thing as "high powered true assault rifles". Assault rifles, by definition, are not high powered.

A few years back a nutjob in Colorado welded steel plate to a bulldozer and went to town. Caused quite a mess. A .50 cal would have solved things nicely.

Actually, at least one of the news reports mentioned a citizen letting the PD use his .50. The heavy equipment that "dueled" with the 'dozer was more effective.

John

 

[vanfunk]

I agree with the responses in this post. I cannot conceive of a situation in this country where it would be advantageous to public safety that the Police be armed with select-fire .308 rifles. Vey bad idea, IMO.

SWAT/Entry Teams/Violent fugitive recovery teams likely do benefit from havig select-fire MP5s or SBR 5.56 carbines, but those are horses of a different color.

vanfunk

 

[whitebear]

I'll toss this thought in - I don't want law enforcement armed with anything I can't legally own.

That being said, a lot of the arguments being used here against LE use of automatic weapons sound very similar to the arguments being used against the posession of firearms in general by the public at large - carelessness, lack of training, lack of trust, etc.

Given the easy availability, how many of us would want to own a firearm like the one being discussed here, well, "just because"?

Just my partially-formed $.02 worth...

 

[JShirley]

Not I.

Because it would be dangerous unless fitted with a T&E mechanism to hold it onto target, in which case the chopped barrel would be just plain silly.

Now, OTOH, a BAR, especially a D model (.308, FAL mags)...yummy.

John

 

[LaEscopeta]

Given the easy availability, how many of us would want to own a firearm like the one being discussed here, well, "just because"?

A private citizen buying one with their own money? I’m fine with that. A police force buying one with tax money? They need to have a valid reason why they need it. “Just because” is longer a valid reason when the government spends public money.

 

[tinygnat219]

FYI,

CZ 22 is 13 years old.

 

[trbon8r]

Like others have said, there is no conceivable situation where police would need to have a light machine gun.

While we're on the topic of unnecessary police guns, I'm still trying to figure out what the MD state police needs a few Barret M82s

Because it's to protect the children! Protecting the children is also why they are again trying pass an "assault weapons ban".

 

[El Tejon]

After the '94 VCCA many police agencies received M14s in my state. They were carried in cars for about 2 months and now reside in police armories.

If I was a LEO in the city, I would want a cut down AR or shotgun or both.

Out where Hayzeus left his shoes, I'd want something in .308.

 

[whitebear]

LaEscopeta said:

A private citizen buying one with their own money? I’m fine with that. A police force buying one with tax money? They need to have a valid reason why they need it. “Just because” is longer a valid reason when the government spends public money.

and I agree completely. Justification should be required for all governmental acquisitions. I'm just reflecting on the number of arguments above for restricting Law Enforcement's access to types of arms based on need, training level, lack of responsibility, etc.

These are the same arguments the anti-second-amendment forces use against us.

 

[Kaylee]

whitebear -- to the first part, I agree LaEscopeta's comment is perfect.
(and I was wondering when the observation you posted would surface, actually).

More to the point though, the difference is not relative skill level*. The difference is mission.

A domestic police force is tasked with preserving public order in a civilian setting. There is no call for light machine guns in that role. A police force must be more surgical in its response than the very nature of a machine gun allows.

In contrast, civilian ownership of arms as covered under the 2A - as insurance to protect the liberties of the people against the dangers of a corrupt government and/or standing military - that is a military function.
If God help us it ever came time to use the 2A as the founders intended, then a LMG would have a role in that mission.

(As would the military's Apaches, in taking out the owner of said LMG. )



-K



* although I think we could probably agree that on the average a firearms hobbyist will be better versed in arms than your average patrolman. Just as the average radio hobbyist will be better with a radio, your average car enthusiast may be a better high-speed driver, etc. Those who become specialists in a given avocation will often be better within that skillset than those who must master it as but one part of much larger basic skillset for their job.