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.
