Teufelhunden
Member
As the title suggests, I'm looking to generate discussion on whether it was the AR-15 platform that serves a specific need of law enforcement, or if the 5.56/.223 round is for some reason particularly suited to the police mission. The AR is undeniably the most popular choice for law enforcement tactical rifle needs, and the market has responded by generating a heap of accessories and ammo.
Coming at it form a platform perspective, the AR is obviously familiar to many people who become LEO's since many of them have military experience. This cuts down on training time and money as they are fielding a weapon the fed gov has already spent thousands of dollars training people on. The modularity of the system is nice; changing calibers is as easy as changing uppers. Finally, while some may disagree, the AR platform has finally matured into a reliable, accurate weapon that can be easily changed to suit mission requirements.
I can't speak much for the .223 since most of my arguments for it go back to vast ammo selection, which is really a Chicken vs. The Egg argument. Suffice to say that its adherents maintain that with a proper round, the .223 is a potent enough manstopper that is suitable for use indoors since it fragments fairly quickly when passing through building materials.
My thinking on this matter started with my search for a patrol carbine. My Sheriff allows his road deputies to select and carry their own rifle as long as they qualify with it. Our SRT unit is issued M4's and many of the deputies have elected to carry an AR of some manner or form. I served 6 years in the USMC and while able enough with an M16 to qualify expert every time I shot it, I never really liked the weapon. I thought the trigger required too much pressure just before it released, the chunking sound of the buffer was distracting, it seemed big for what it did and I could never get to the point that it enjoyed carrying it. Obviously, however, HQ USMC did not consult with me before they issued me a weapon, so I was stuck with it.
Having been out and now having the flexibility to select my own weapon, I've taken a liking to the AK platform. My initial exposure was on a VEPR II in 7.62X39, and I've since also fired a VEPR II-K in 5.45X39. I felt much more comfortable shouldering and firing each of these weapons relative to an AR. The only thing I did not like was where the safety is located. Doing some research led me to the Krebs Custom KTR-03S, which is a high-end AK with rails on the fore-end, a Galil-type thumb safety and a rear sight back on the receiver cover instead of above the chamber. These are all improvements on the standard AK design in my estimation. The price however, is also an 'improvement'.
This digression leads me back to my original post and questions. I enjoyed the VEPR in 5.45 and was accurate with it. However, I have not heard of a manufacturer of 'tactical' or more importantly 'low-penetration' ammo such as Hornady's TAP line for 5.45. 7.62X39 also seems to suffer from this limitation and in my estimation, a 123grn bullet travelling at that speed is simply too much for potential use indoors. This consideration led me to ponder purchasing a VEPR in 5.56 to allow for more ammo varieties. Once I came to that conclusion, it dropped me right back to thinking that if .223 is the de-facto law enforcement caliber, why not just get on the bus and buy an AR?
I would love to buy all three weapons, but a cop's budget is a sad sad thing... My first choice would still be to get the Krebs, but price and the fact that it's only chambered in 7.62 and 5.45 temper that desire some. Second choice is a VEPR II-K, and finding a way of mounting a light on the fore-end. That I can get it in .223 and it's almost half the price of the Krebs is nice.
Does anyone have a convincing reason to select 5.56 over 5.45, and is the concensus that I should just go with the AR flow since apparently many people know something I don't?
-Teuf
Coming at it form a platform perspective, the AR is obviously familiar to many people who become LEO's since many of them have military experience. This cuts down on training time and money as they are fielding a weapon the fed gov has already spent thousands of dollars training people on. The modularity of the system is nice; changing calibers is as easy as changing uppers. Finally, while some may disagree, the AR platform has finally matured into a reliable, accurate weapon that can be easily changed to suit mission requirements.
I can't speak much for the .223 since most of my arguments for it go back to vast ammo selection, which is really a Chicken vs. The Egg argument. Suffice to say that its adherents maintain that with a proper round, the .223 is a potent enough manstopper that is suitable for use indoors since it fragments fairly quickly when passing through building materials.
My thinking on this matter started with my search for a patrol carbine. My Sheriff allows his road deputies to select and carry their own rifle as long as they qualify with it. Our SRT unit is issued M4's and many of the deputies have elected to carry an AR of some manner or form. I served 6 years in the USMC and while able enough with an M16 to qualify expert every time I shot it, I never really liked the weapon. I thought the trigger required too much pressure just before it released, the chunking sound of the buffer was distracting, it seemed big for what it did and I could never get to the point that it enjoyed carrying it. Obviously, however, HQ USMC did not consult with me before they issued me a weapon, so I was stuck with it.
Having been out and now having the flexibility to select my own weapon, I've taken a liking to the AK platform. My initial exposure was on a VEPR II in 7.62X39, and I've since also fired a VEPR II-K in 5.45X39. I felt much more comfortable shouldering and firing each of these weapons relative to an AR. The only thing I did not like was where the safety is located. Doing some research led me to the Krebs Custom KTR-03S, which is a high-end AK with rails on the fore-end, a Galil-type thumb safety and a rear sight back on the receiver cover instead of above the chamber. These are all improvements on the standard AK design in my estimation. The price however, is also an 'improvement'.
This digression leads me back to my original post and questions. I enjoyed the VEPR in 5.45 and was accurate with it. However, I have not heard of a manufacturer of 'tactical' or more importantly 'low-penetration' ammo such as Hornady's TAP line for 5.45. 7.62X39 also seems to suffer from this limitation and in my estimation, a 123grn bullet travelling at that speed is simply too much for potential use indoors. This consideration led me to ponder purchasing a VEPR in 5.56 to allow for more ammo varieties. Once I came to that conclusion, it dropped me right back to thinking that if .223 is the de-facto law enforcement caliber, why not just get on the bus and buy an AR?
I would love to buy all three weapons, but a cop's budget is a sad sad thing... My first choice would still be to get the Krebs, but price and the fact that it's only chambered in 7.62 and 5.45 temper that desire some. Second choice is a VEPR II-K, and finding a way of mounting a light on the fore-end. That I can get it in .223 and it's almost half the price of the Krebs is nice.
Does anyone have a convincing reason to select 5.56 over 5.45, and is the concensus that I should just go with the AR flow since apparently many people know something I don't?
-Teuf
