S.C. Sheriff's Department Armored Vehicle with Belt-Fed Machine Gun

[Titan6]

Absent a fire-fight with terrorists armed with selective fire weapons or a coastal patrol boat, I can see no need for a belt-fed 50 caliber machine gun in law enforcement.

I don't know about the "select fire" weapons part but the rest is pretty much dead on. So I will agree with you, it is a necessity. Because if you have been reading the news that day is coming

 

[Still Too Many Choices!?]

From a liability stand point, this is idiotic!! A .50 will shoot through most common buildi g construction, even in non AP form. So who advocates using a weapon known to be excessive, just as a show of force? Not a personal attack, but sounds pretty stupid to me... Right tool for the right job. Leaving total destruction of a target home, vehicle, or suspect, off the list off positives of the .50, some one explain how a .50 is better in this role(mounted to apc)than say a more correct M249, or M240? If either of those weapons had been mounted, I bet the tone of the thread would have shifted to ,"I want one too".

 

[bigger hammer]

After you wrote

Once again the police are not and should not be anything like the military, now go back to oppressing civilians at your day job. [Emphasis added]

I responded,

Is this another example of how you "respect [the] PD" and how you want them "on [y]our side?" ROFLMAO.

No sir that is what i think of you.

Another "High Road" post. ROFLMAO

I notice that you edited your post to add this,

Currently you cannot make E-5 in 4 yrs [Emphasis added]

Yes and?

I was in quite some time ago. I made E–5 in less than 3 years. There's a pretty good chance that you weren't born yet.

I am an E-5 and have been in for eight years AD

Thanks for your service.

AF yes the AF is real military

I thought it might have been.

however the guys that do 4 and get out is what we call the freeloader college boys

We called people who stayed for longer than the minimum enlistment "lifers." There were many rude things we said about them then that I'm now sorry for. I don't feel a need to personally attack you with name calling. Your posts say enough about the kind of person that you are.

 

[bigger hammer]

Don't you think that the MILITARY needs military weapons?

Yep.

Whether or not this thing is an actual hazard in the hands of police, it would be much better used in Iraq or Afghanistan, and would be much more likely to save American lives.

Do you think that there's some military unit driving around who has been shorted this tool because it's in the hands of the Sheriff's Office? I doubt it. These are not usually made available to the locals until and unless they're at the end of their military working life. They'll be fine with the minimal use that the PD will put them to but usually they're not suited to the military mission anymore.

While their at it, they should send the wannabe-soldiers who requisitioned this thing over there, too.

You'll find that many who "requisitioned this thing" have already done service to their country.

 

[Mags]

We called people who stayed for longer than the minimum enlistment "lifers." There were many rude things we said about them then that I'm now sorry for. I don't feel a need to personally attack you with name calling. Your posts say enough about the kind of person that you are.

Way to take The High Road , sorry.

I need to stay away from these General Gun Discussion threads they always get me riled up and I type with to much emotion, haha, guess I should hang out more in the Tools and Tech area LOL.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Have you forgotten (or do you even know) about Carlos Hathcock's mounting of a scope on an M2 in Vietnam? Using it, he got what was (at that time) the longest kill.

Let's not forget that quite a few times LE has been up against the domestic equivalent of "terrorists armed with selective fire weapons."

Hathcock's application was military. So, what's the relevance? This is different from the role that is envisioned by the local law enforcement agency. It is especially different from that of a law enforcement sniper as a belt fed machinegun is not the optimal weapon for single shot kills.

Domestic Terrorists armed with selective fire weapons? I don't know of any. However, I've heard of several cases where there were criminals armed with selective fire weapons. I've no objection to the po-po using selective fire weapons or even a belt fed machine gun against them. However, there is another concern that must be considered before a belt fed .50 is deployed. Overpenetration. If you're in the woods, then it may not be so much of a concern. However, in a city environment, liability comes to mind.

 

[Still Too Many Choices!?]

Bigger Hammer: Got two words for ya ,"collateral damage". In a military setting, you do your best to limit it. In a civillian context, you had better mitigate civillian casualties or else!! Problems with this purchase, are as follows:
1. Too much gun for police applications...
2. Impossible to obey the 4 rules know your target and what's behind it(10 blocks away)
3. Cop guns are for using, not intimidation. This weapon will eventually be used, or a target for criminals to attempt to steal.

 

[P.O.2010]

Sure would come in handy on a barricaded suspect who's equipped himself with a gas mask and lots of ammo.

Rescue ops are another use. Dealing with riotous crowds another.. Maintaining order in times of large scale disasters is another.

If it encourages even one suspect to surrender rather than fight it out, it's worth it.

So what exactly are you going to do with a .50 machine gun when you have a barricaded suspect, bring the building down on top of him? Be serious. There's a well known saying which is that "if you can see them, they can see you." If he's firing on officers they can certainly see where he is and return fire, no need to bring the building down. Assuming, however, that for some reason you cannot take the shot, you have your local SWAT team make entry, use a flash bang or a stinger, and extract him. If deadly force is needed, so be it. If he can be taken alive, even better. Bottom line, you don't need a fully automatic .50 machine gun to solve a barricade situation even if the subject has a pro-mask and a few thousand rounds. And in the very unlikely event that you should actually have to shoot through the wall to hit him, a Barrett .50 can certainly do the job.

As for 'rescue ops' and 'riotous crowds', Police DO NOT utilize suppressive fire or fire bursts from automatic weapons into crowds. If you hit an innocent person under those circumstances you will be charged with murder or aggravated assault and prosecuted accordingly. If you have people using molotov cocktails in a crowd you use well aimed rifle or pistol fire to neutralize them not a burst from a .50 machine gun. Even when I was in Iraq we had strict orders not to fire bursts into a crowd to hit a subset of people. That's what aimed fire from my M-4 was for.

Fully automatic weapons primarily designed to destroy light armored vehicles and aircraft are not needed in civilian law enforcement.

 

[Art Eatman]

Eleven pages of 'round and 'round and 'round, mostly rather silly bashing of cops, seems to be rather pointless.

Seems to me that to say that cops will inevitably misuse such a weapons system is not a lot different from saying that any of us would misuse a firearm. We've heard the argument from the anti-gun crowd that the mere presence of a weapon will somehow cause Bad Things to happen. Why would we use the same argument against the police?

Enough.