Question to LEOs: Shotgun or AR15 for you?

[Sam1911]

I always assumed that if they were sent on a call where they'd need to pull out the rifle they'd swing by the local gravel pits and check zero before they fired any shots in a public place.

Surely they'd at least do that. Right?

(Of course, where these guys were from, the nearest gravel pits -- or rifle ranges! -- were in another state!)

Or maybe the guys in the motor pool zero the rifles when they change the oil?

 

[JERRY]

weapon mntc is non-existent

 

[javjacob]

"javjacob: You are very incorrect.

Wait, let me rephrase...you are so wrong it's epic." <quote



there are plenty of cases of people surviving multiple hits from a 223/556. cant say I've ever heard of anyone surviving a hit with a 12 gauge 1oz slug... wouldn't be much left. there have been people who survived being hit by buck shot but not with all the pellets hitting them, only a few. 2.75" 00buck has 9 .33 pellets and 3" 00buck has 15 .33 pellets... if you eat all 9 or 15 pellets at 30yrds or less... you aren't walking away

 

[jim243]

It's all a mater of use and distance. For house cleaning the 12 gauge is an excellent choice. For a warehouse or outdoors the M-4 would be far better.

It would really depend on the situation.

Jim

 

[coloradokevin]

I've carried both, and I prefer the AR-15. The reality is that I feel more comfortable with the AR-15 in terms of its versatility. If a longer range shot is required, or perhaps a hostage shot, an AR-15 is a clear preferred choice. Plus, with the AR-15 I can easily walk into an active shooting situation with more than 100 rounds of rifle ammo on board, and semi-automatic fire capability (that's something I very much prefer). The AR-15 is also a more compact weapon, which makes it easier to use during a building clearance. Today's criminals are also better armed, and the ones I encounter that are armed are often groups of gang members (multiple armed parties)... in this environment I think the AR-15 is a better choice.

Don't get me wrong, the shotgun is a formidable weapon and probably has the single best one-shot, stop-right-now record of any gun we use on the streets at work. It's also a better gun to deploy if you plan to engage in any door breaching with it (though that isn't likely to be encountered by a home defense user). But, the slower rate of fire of the shotgun, coupled with the fact that it has a more limited magazine capacity, weighs more, and is a bit more unwieldy makes it a less ideal choice for my use on the streets today.

 

[yzguy87]

"But, the slower rate of fire of the shotgun, coupled with the fact that it has a more limited magazine capacity, weighs more, and is a bit more unwieldy makes it a less ideal choice for my use on the streets today."

I am not leo but I have thought of this and wondered why weapons like converted Saiga 12s or VEPR 12s haven't been used. Is it because of negative public perception, or negative leo perception?

 

[Sam1911]

Saigas? Hmmm... I can think of a few reasons:

1) Lack of familiarity with the Kalashnikov. No commonality with any other police forces or the military so training and experience is nil. And the Saiga12s are a bit "odd" even for Kalashnikov users. Quirky.

2) Unwieldy and bulky compared to a pump gun with the large box magazines. Have you ever tried to "store" a 10 or 20 round Saiga12 magazine or two? You need a backpack.

3) Very spotty reputation for reliability -- in general, but massively more so when compared to a pump shotgun or an AR.

4) Having mentioned the familiarity angle, I'll add that they're still pretty new on the scene compared to any of the guns commonly issued to police officers.

5) And ... no great need as yet commonly expressed for such a thing. With most departments switching to ARs anyway, away from the harder-recoiling and lower capacity shotguns (even a Saiga 12 with a drum is low-capacity compared to a standard AR mag, which an officer could carry 3 or 4 of for every Saiga mag) -- what's the point? Who's clamoring for a temperamental bulky package of massive firepower in a police role? An AR is more accurate if any distance work is needed, and close-in, an 8 or 9-shot 12 ga is probably going to take care of most problems. Officers aren't switching to other guns because there's a big problem with their Mossbergs and Remingtons not being capable of taking care of business.

 

[Mitlov]

My understanding is that semi-auto shotguns are much, much more finicky about loading bean-bag rounds and other riot-control loads than a pump-action is. With the Saiga's poor reliability reputation under the best of circumstances, I'd be surprised if it could ever handle the wide variety of 12-gauge loads that law enforcement uses in their shotguns.

The Saiga also strikes me as a lot more cumbersome in close-quarters than a Remington 870 or Mossberg 500.

I'm not a LEO, though, so I may be completely off-base.

 

[Sam1911]

Ideally, less-lethal rounds like bean-bag rounds, baton rounds, OC ball rounds, etc. should not be fired through weapons that are also used for firing live, lethal ammo (too big a chance for a "whoopsie") but that's not universally followed.

At any rate, the Saigas are hardly -- in general -- reliable enough to fire ONE kind of ammo consistently without luck and/or a lot of tinkering, let alone oddball rounds.

 

[HB]

Shotguns are simpler, cheaper, very reliable with minimal maintenance, and pack both a real and psychological wallop. Above all they provide the firepower needed for most encounters for $400 while an AR does the same for $1000. These guns will spend 99% of their lives in the rack.

HB

 

[Ranger Roberts]

Ideally, less-lethal rounds like bean-bag rounds, baton rounds, OC ball rounds, etc. should not be fired through weapons that are also used for firing live, lethal ammo (too big a chance for a "whoopsie") but that's not universally followed.

Sam1911 got it right however some of the smaller depts don't have the funds for multiple weapons (mine dept for example). We tend to use an older beat up 870 to deploy less lethal rounds but sometimes that old girl is called into action for "regular" rounds.

My understanding is that semi-auto shotguns are much, much more finicky about loading bean-bag rounds and other riot-control loads than a pump-action is.

A lot of them definitely are. I carry my personal 930spx and so does another guy in my dept. Mine has no problems loading and cycling every kind of low brass or less lethal rounds. His 930spx (which was bought at the same store, on the same day, at the same time as mine) will fire low brass no problem, but won't cycle less lethal.

 

[javjacob]

both work well for different situations so its a preference... would you prefer to spend $300 or $1,000

 

[Warp]

there are plenty of cases of people surviving multiple hits from a 223/556. cant say I've ever heard of anyone surviving a hit with a 12 gauge 1oz slug... wouldn't be much left. there have been people who survived being hit by buck shot but not with all the pellets hitting them, only a few. 2.75" 00buck has 9 .33 pellets and 3" 00buck has 15 .33 pellets... if you eat all 9 or 15 pellets at 30yrds or less... you aren't walking away

1. You need to do some more real world research if you've never heard of a person surviving a hit from a 12 gauge slug.

2. You need to do some more real world research if you've never heard of a person surviving a hit from 12 gauge buckshot (all pellets, but anyway, if only some of the pellets hit that right there is an example of one of the potential negatives of using a shotgun)

3. You are wrong to claim matter of factly that a single shell of buckshot guarantees anything.

4. You are wrong to say that a single 12 gauge round does more damage than 5 rounds of 5.56/.223.

both work well for different situations so its a preference... would you prefer to spend $300 or $1,000

I prefer the 5.56 carbine. But I am fortunate enough that I don't have to make cost my primary consideration anymore, and I don't have to take what I consider to be the lower tier option simply because of price.

But then my AR, as it sits, cost a lot more than $1,000.

And my shotgun, as it sits, cost a lot more than $300.

 

[waterhouse]

Unfortunately those officers got little or no training on those either, and the rifles were not theirs, but assigned to whatever car they got from the motor pool that morning. Not terribly confidence inspiring.

That is the situation with our shotguns. The shotgun rides around in the car, which can get assigned to a different person every day. The 870s have rifle sights, and the department issues both buckshot and slugs. We are taught about the versatility of the shotgun, how slugs can be used to great accuracy, etc.

When you go to qualify with slugs you take the shotgun out of the car you are assigned that day and qualify with it. I've had some that have POI about 6" away from POA at 25 yards, which is quite a bit when they talk about using slugs for hostage situations.

My AR is mine and I know it is sighted in.

But the question was to LEOs as to what they preferred, not what they are mandated to have.

As for maybe not being "gun people" or not having as much experience, I would think those things would cause more of them to want AR's instead of shotguns. If I wasn't a gun person, I'd want something that was light recoiling, and only required pulling the trigger for each shot rather than having to pump the forearm before each shot, since that is simpler. Yet the majority of LEOs here are saying they prefer shotguns.

I think there will be some bias based on the mandates. As stated, in my dept. each car is issued a shotgun, and therefore they train academy cadets in the use of the shotgun and make everyone qualify with a shotgun, just the same as the duty pistol. As it is mandated, many officers will prefer what they are familiar with, which is the shotgun.

While there are a few officers who are trained on both and choose the shotgun, in my department I'd wager 90% of those who are AR qualified reach for the rifle when a situation calls for a long gun. I believe if AR training was taught in the academy along with shotgun, instead of requiring extra post academy training, more officers would select the AR. As Warp noted, the guys who have a ton of training and get to choose whatever they want (SWAT and other specialized groups) overwhelmingly choose the AR, with the exception generally only being a dedicated breacher.

 

[javjacob]

people have survived hits from every make of gun made. 00buck or 1oz slug will do more damage than 223/556 plain and simple. arguing with you over this is pointless so im outta this thread

 

[Sam1911]

Hey javjacob, that's an awesome sig! Great way to "argue outside the box" so to speak. Heck, like bumper stickers, everything is more truth-y when you read it in a sig line!

 

[Mitlov]

people have survived hits from every make of gun made

"And on the news at eleven, our exclusive interview with a soldier who took a direct hit from a GAU-8 and lived to tell the tale," said no journalist ever.

 

[RetDep310]

Retired in 2008, but was issued an AR a couple of years before I left. I was issued a used, but cherry, M-16 with full auto, the style A2 with the old sights and triangle forearm. Only used the full auto to show the young pups what it was like to go rock n roll. After I was issued that weapon, my Mossberg 590 stayed in the rack, except for quals. For some strange reason, I turned down a new Rock River M4 when offered!!!

 

[HorseSoldier]

there are plenty of cases of people surviving multiple hits from a 223/556. cant say I've ever heard of anyone surviving a hit with a 12 gauge 1oz slug... wouldn't be much left. there have been people who survived being hit by buck shot but not with all the pellets hitting them, only a few. 2.75" 00buck has 9 .33 pellets and 3" 00buck has 15 .33 pellets... if you eat all 9 or 15 pellets at 30yrds or less... you aren't walking away

I'm aware of at least one shooting where a suspect took two shells worth of 00 buckshot at < 7 yards, plus multiple hits from an AR, before they stopped returning fire. Both shotgun hits and most of the 5.56 were good C zone or better hits, and any one of them would probably have been fatal eventually on its own, but the bad guy was still resisting and returning fire for several minutes after all that.

Sometimes people are just hard to kill.

 

[coloradokevin]

Just a few more opinions to add to this discussion since my last post:

1) I agree with Sam, a less-lethal shotgun should not be the same as a "lethal" shotgun. It's too easy to end up in a situation (especially under stress) where an officer puts a load of buckshot into someone who only really qualified for a less lethal response. In my department the less lethal shotguns have fallen out of favor a bit, and we're now primarily fielding pepper ball and 40 mm less lethal weapons in lieu of the less lethal shotgun. Regardless, we still have less lethal shotguns available, and they have an orange forend/stock on them

2) One reason that shotguns might appear more popular in many agencies might have everything to do with agency politics, and little to do with effectiveness. In my department every officer is shotgun qualified in the academy. Rifle officers are required to apply for an additional 50 hour training course, and the waiting list for that course is usually 2-5 years. Additionally, to be eligible for the course you need to have a sign-off from your commander, and a demonstrated yearly pistol qualification average of better than 90% (we qualify quarterly). So, some officers opt for shotguns simply because it is a much easier option to choose.

3) Lethality is a moot point. If I shoot an attacker, and he can remain in the fight, but dies from his wounds 3 days later, that lethality has done nothing for me. Conversely, if I shoot an attacker and he immediately loses consciousness, the fact that he might survive his wound is also irrelevant. The goal is always simply to stop the fight. Admittedly the mechanisms of stopping a fight with a gun are often the same mechanisms that result in death, but the two factors are not inextricably linked. As such, determining the effectiveness of a defensive weapon on the basis of mortality can be a flawed way of looking at the situation.

4) A shotgun is a very good fight stopper, with proper ammunition and shot placement (yes, shot placement ABSOLUTELY matters with a shotgun at home defense distances). But, despite the effectiveness of this weapon, I've personally seen it fail to anchor people in the past. A rifle is also a very good fight stopper, again considering proper ammunition choices and good shot placement. But, like the shotgun, I've seen them fail to stop people in the past. Side note: using birdshot in a shotgun is foolish, IMO. We once had a domestic where the dirtbag boyfriend shot his girlfriend in the face with a 12 gauge as they stood in the living room together. She took the entire load to the face, and survived (though probably wishing she hadn't for a while). The light shot simply failed to penetrate sufficiently to kill her.

Anyway, in pure stopping power I'd probably give the edge to the shotgun when shooting against an unarmored person at close range with 00-Buck or slugs. The rifle gets an edge in stopping a person at longer distances, or potentially when the subject is wearing body armor.

Just remember, there is no magic bullet. Learn to run the gun you have, and learn its advantages and limitations.

 

[12Pump]

I'm aware of at least one shooting where a suspect took two shells worth of 00 buckshot at < 7 yards, plus multiple hits from an AR, before they stopped returning fire. Both shotgun hits and most of the 5.56 were good C zone or better hits, and any one of them would probably have been fatal eventually on its own, but the bad guy was still resisting and returning fire for several minutes after all that.

Sometimes people are just hard to kill.

I sure would hate to have had to go up against that guy! It makes me wonder sometimes when people say that the location of the hits are all that matters, not the caliber. But if this guy was hit in the right location many times and still keeps going, there must be something else involved.

 

[Warp]

I sure would hate to have had to go up against that guy! It makes me wonder sometimes when people say that the location of the hits are all that matters, not the caliber. But if this guy was hit in the right location many times and still keeps going, there must be something else involved.

Shot placement is not the only thing that matters. But it is the most important thing. The second most important thing is adequate penetration.

But the only thing that guarantees a stop is a direct, incapacitating hit to the central nervous system. Anything short of that and some people will continue to fight/attack, even if they are already mortally wounded and going to die (and thus are actually in the process of dying)

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I once had the opportunity to carry a rifle instead of a shotgun in my patrol car. At the time, I had a modified Rem 700 .308 scout rifle. It was capable of very fast hits out to 300 yards, and the ability to penetrate most anything that I chose to shoot at. It also commanded a lot of respect at the time on the few occasions I had to take it out on an assist or call; people just didn't know what to make of it, and didn't want to find out. I have since replaced it in my "retired" arsenal with a similar Remington LH 700 .30-06 scout rifle. The .30-06 rifle ended up lighter than my older .308, and faster as I'm a lefty. I heartily recommend a rifle over a shotgun, as long as the user knows its limitations and dangers of penetration, and either acts accordingly, or carries a range of ammo for greater/less penetration, and knows point of impacts, etc. An officer armed with a .30 cal rifle that knows how to use it a very lethal commodity.

 

[coloradokevin]

I once had the opportunity to carry a rifle instead of a shotgun in my patrol car. At the time, I had a modified Rem 700 .308 scout rifle. It was capable of very fast hits out to 300 yards, and the ability to penetrate most anything that I chose to shoot at. It also commanded a lot of respect at the time on the few occasions I had to take it out on an assist or call

Was this a long time ago? Man, I'll tell you what, my agency sure wouldn't let us run around with .308's, .30-06's, or bolt guns (for normal patrol use). We even had a guy get fired after using unauthorized ammo in his AR-15 (didn't help that he shot the girlfriend of the guy he was aiming at, but that's another matter entirely). Just curious if there are any agencies out there these days that are using .30 cal rifles (outside of sniper applications).

Shot placement is not the only thing that matters. But it is the most important thing. The second most important thing is adequate penetration.

But the only thing that guarantees a stop is a direct, incapacitating hit to the central nervous system. Anything short of that and some people will continue to fight/attack, even if they are already mortally wounded and going to die (and thus are actually in the process of dying)

Bingo! I've seen this myself, and have perhaps mentioned it around here in the past. I worked two shooting cases in the past year where the victims took a heart shot and ran between 150 feet and 150 yards before dying. In the more notable of the two cases the victim was shot straight through the heart while standing on fresh snow. It was entirely obvious where he was standing when he was shot, and he ran a heck of a long way with a destroyed ticker. He was dead from the time that the shot hit him, and couldn't have survived that wound even if he was shot while laying on an operating room table with a team of doctors ready to work on him. But, the adrenaline carried him quite a distance before he dropped (and it appears that he dropped like a rock when he finally did). But, the guy who has enough juice left in him to run 150 yards without a heart certainly has enough in him to pull the trigger two or three times before expiring.

So, as Warp already mentioned, it's sometimes important to remember that severely incapacitating damage to the central nervous system is the only thing that guarantees as stop immediately... that's why police snipers use these shots, despite carrying rifles that are plenty capable of killing a person with a center of mass shot.

 

[Robert]

In my CSP car I had a Remington 870, real M-16 and a real M-14. I had options...