View Full Version : Automatic Assault Rifle Schools
Team Sergeant
06-22-2006, 13:32
Here's a question for all:
Where in the United States does anyone teach/instruct the use of "fully" automatic fire for an assault rifle or submachine gun to non-military personnel (Fed State Local LEO's)?
Has anyone out there been to a school and received a diploma in the use of "Fully Automatic Fire"????
(US military excluded)
Team Sergeant
TS-
I have taken a class from Tactical Response (out of Camden, TN). Class and Diploma listed as "Tactical Sub-Machine Gun". If I recall it was a two day class and utilized suppressed M-4 platform weaponry supplied by a vendor local to you (I took the class here in Tucson).
Endorphin Rush
06-22-2006, 13:46
Been to the NRA's Select-fire school. The course did not deal with auto fire only, but did require the use of fully auto weapons. One of the qualifying standards was to be able to demonstrate placing one 28 round magazine onto an 8 1/2 x 11 inch target at 10 meters.
If this is relevant to what you seek, I'll be happy to provide any info that I can.
Team Sergeant
06-22-2006, 13:54
Been to the NRA's Select-fire school. The course did not deal with auto fire only, but did require the use of fully auto weapons. One of the qualifying standards was to be able to demonstrate placing one 28 round magazine onto an 8 1/2 x 11 inch target at 10 meters.
If this is relevant to what you seek, I'll be happy to provide any info that I can.
This is exactly what I was looking for....
(Sorry azmg, a tactical shooting taught by many that have never been in harms way doesn't cut it. Hope you enjoyed the course.)
NRA Select-Fire Instructor
This school is designed for the select-fire firearm with full-automatic capability and applies to both submachine guns and rifles. Classroom presentations cover how to teach basic fundamentals of marksmanship, handling, zeroing, practical range drill development, and liability issues. Range work covers marksmanship, operating techniques, use of cover, various firing positions, pivots and turns, use of the safety circle concept, reloading under stress, firing on the move, multiple threats, decision-making, reduced light threat identification and firing, semi-automatic, burst and automatic firing trigger control, and handgun transition techniques. Students design a tactical course of fire and are responsible for developing a lesson plan and running fellow students through their course at the end of the week. In addition to the above mentioned equipment, the following are ALSO necessary for this school:
Duty-type, law enforcement select-fire rifle or submachine gun capable of being fired single shot and full-auto, equipped with a sling.
At least three magazines with a capacity of 20 rounds or more.
1,500 rounds of duty or training rifle ammunition.
100 rounds of duty or training handgun ammunition.
I'm going to send a few emails to the NRA LEO training staff and ask some hard questions.......
TS
Warrior-Mentor
06-22-2006, 15:17
Why does anyone not Military need this?
Team Sergeant
06-22-2006, 15:41
Why does anyone not Military or LEO need this?
The US military (conventional) does not employ automatic assault weapons fire (3 shot burst only). It's just not effective and definitely not discrimatory.
My question is what situations does civilian Law enforcement think its necessary to employ full automatic fire?
I have a friend that does a class in the Northern Va area. His is oriented towards the consumer that would otherwise never get a chance to rock'n'roll full auto. He's very thorough and safe. His classroom time is about 10 times longer than the range portion.
Team Sergeant
06-22-2006, 18:07
His is oriented towards the consumer that would otherwise never get a chance to rock'n'roll full auto.
I have nothing against this sort of venture. It's very entertaining!;)
TS
Smokin Joe
06-22-2006, 19:12
TS,
Just FYI, I do know an LEO who has used an M-4 on full auto in an Officer involved shooting. It was effective...beyond that, I would rather fill you in on the details via PM or phone.
I have nothing against this sort of venture. It's very entertaining!;)
TS
He loves it, makes him some bookoo bucks. Pretty suprising the amount of macho men that think it's easy until they crack off about 10 rounds and stitch the ceiling.
As an NRA certified instructor, I prefer teaching women. They listen well and don't try to impress me. My favorite thing is teaching a husband and wife at the same time and showing Mr. Tough Guy that his wife is a force to be reckoned with. :D
They (the man) learn to be really nice from that point on. ;)
CoLawman
06-22-2006, 22:32
Why does anyone not Military need this?
I know of several instances where Law Enforcement agencies were engaged in fights with individuals also using fully automatic weapons. I can speak personally of two incidents.
The need has always been there and is becoming more prevalent with the use of fully automatic weapons by gangsters. It is well documented that the military has been infiltrated by gang members and they are coming out with training that makes them formidable opponents to law enforcement. A recent shooting in California, involving a gang member with military training, resulted in the death of the officer. The gangster was armed with a fully automatic weapon and the officers, initially, were armed with their handguns.
Fully automatic weapons have been part of LE arsenal since the Thompson machine gun. The MP5 was a popular choice for SWAT during the 80's and is still quite prevalent in LE.
The ATF agents on this site can speak to the percentage of gangsters with fully automatic weapons. I can only speak of my community, and the weapon of choice is the sawed off shotgun, but the badguys arsenals include fully automatic weapons.
Our officers now have the choice of carrying a shotgun or an AR15 (with training and quals.) This is the norm. Automatic weapons are generally in the hands of SWAT.
TS I will research what training they receive. When I was SWAT it was through the FBI and LAPD. At that time we trained with short bursts. Have no clue on what is being taught and by whom the last 10 years. Will get back to you on it though.
CoLawman
06-22-2006, 22:37
The US military (conventional) does not employ automatic assault weapons fire (3 shot burst only). It's just not effective and definitely not discrimatory.
My question is what situations does civilian Law enforcement think its necessary to employ full automatic fire?
TS, I do not believe that law enforcement is contrary to the military. I know of no qualification course where point and spray is used.
I do recall the LA shootout with the bank robbers, where the SWAT team arrived in a car and jumped out using this method as suppressive fire to get the badguy to stop his point and spray method. It worked and was captured forever on video.
Basicload
06-23-2006, 04:39
Actually the LAPD SWAT officer was firing an MP-5 and he was not suppressing the guy, he was engaging on automatic into the street under the car in order to skip the rounds into the target. he was extremely successful, striking the robber in the inner thigh where the robber had no IIIA coverage like he had on the front of his legs and causing a femoral bleed which incapacitated him almost instantly.
Automatic fire as a primary method of engagement with 9mm sub-guns is widely taught. The lack of terminal effects and controlability the MP-5 series on auto lends itself to automatic fire. That being said, I'll take a 5.56 on semi-auto any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
HK training division teaches full auto and burst fire in their Sub-gun course as well, Team Sereant.
Team Sergeant
06-23-2006, 07:49
HK training division teaches full auto and burst fire in their Sub-gun course as well, Team Sereant.
Basicload,
No kidding, I wonder why they do that? :rolleyes:
In my 20 years of combat arms all teaching with subgun and assault rifle to the man (instructor) all said the same thing, automatic fife from these sort of weapons is not effective and definitely not discrimatory.
Do all you LEO's posting really think that every local, state and Fed's get enough "fully automatic fire" training to employ this sort of fire?
Does anyone want to venture a guess why no one in the military uses automatic (assault rifle) fire in battle?
TS
I would guess...
You need to account for every round. Fighting in populated areas, you don't want stray rounds hitting someone who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
If support fire is needed I would imagine a SAW or CAS would be more useful if available?
Conserve ammo because if you dump all your ammo on one threat, another might be right around the corner? I'm guessing for LEO this is less of a problem.
j
Bill Harsey
06-23-2006, 08:15
Why does anyone not Military need this?
liberal.
TS...the answer is NO. (for my agency)
My question to you TS is, generally speaking, how long/much training do think is necessary for experienced shooters to become profecient in fully automatic carbine fire? Including sustainment training.
My agency has M-4's with the fun button. These are issued to tactical teams who IMO do not get nearly enough training on full auto to be safe or effective. I suppose its good to have the capability of full auto (assuming adequate training) if you need it. The situation my agency purchased the M4's were for the Bank Of America type nightmare in which an officer/civilian gets hit and is in need of rescue. We also got a nice grant from Uncle Sam :D IMO full auto has very little space in urban LE.
Basicload
06-23-2006, 09:39
TS,
To answer your question.
Assault rifles are NOT controlable in auto especially battle rifles (7.62mm). Even the 417 (and I love the 417 BTW).
I'm not sure that I totally agree with your assertions on sub-guns though.
I have driven tacks with an MP5 on Auto at CQB distances. I also don't like bringing a pistol caliber to a gun fight and when I have been forced to use the MP-5, I have taken the montra of "anything worth shooting, is worth shooting 8-12 times".
The selector on the MP-5 sucks so bad that several times I would end up getting auto even when I only wanted semi. I have seen MP-5 receivers with set screws tapped in them to prevent the selector from going to auto because of this problem.
At most distances that a SWAT team operates in, the MP-5 is very controlable. I still submit and agree with you that a semi auto carbine is a better choice in almost all cases.
Does anyone want to venture a guess why no one in the military uses automatic (assault rifle) fire in battle?
TSI don't quite know where to begin. Its a waist of ammo when you don't have much capacity to begin with. You could be changing mags more than you are shooting. Consider a basic load for an automatic rifleman in the Army is five times that of a M4 or M16 rifleman. If your barrell gets too hot with one of these carbines, oh well. With a 6-9 round burst you have about 3-5 bursts, which will be gone in seconds, then your fidling with mags. It is best to have a real machine gun for the job. An M249 is considered light. What would that make a carbine. At double the weight of a carbine with bipod legs it is still preferrable to fire in the prone where you can really control the weapon almost surgically, and even that takes some skill. In a carbine semi-auto or 3round burst is fast enough. If you want auto you need a real machine gun that is belt fed. Just my 02.
I may be a little late on this one, and pardon me if this is out of line with me being a new user, but I'd contact James Yeager of Tactical Response in Camden, TN. He also has a forum where you could contact him or I could get you his personal contact information and pm it to you if you'd like.
ObliqueApproach
06-23-2006, 11:29
....... If you want auto you need a real machine gun that is belt fed. Just my 02.
Well said!:lifter
incommin
06-23-2006, 11:46
The US military (conventional) does not employ automatic assault weapons fire (3 shot burst only). It's just not effective and definitely not discrimatory.
My question is what situations does civilian Law enforcement think its necessary to employ full automatic fire?
I do not think there is one.
The Army teaches machine gun crews to maximise the use of their gun. It teaches 11B's and others to use aimed fire. They learn to "spray fire" on their own when the time comes.
The Army Brass fought going from single shot arms to bolt actions and then from bolt actions to semi autos because of the fear that soldiers whould no longer aim their weapons.
Full auto is for clearing trenches and rooms, suppressing fire, terrain denial, and recon by fire where you do not have to worry with collaterial damage.
None of that fits into LE work. LE always has to worry about collaterial damage!
TS, I don't think I have written anything you didn't all ready know. So I am curious about why you asked the question.
None of that fits into LE work. LE always has to worry about collaterial damage!
TS, I don't think I have written anything you didn't all ready know. So I am curious about why you asked the question.
Incommin, I have asked some current LEOs about this. There seem to be a view that the "bad guys" are using full autos more and more and also with the terrorist situation, they feel that LEO needs equal capabilities to respond those threats if they arised.
Full autos would be added to the LEO's bag of tools should he need arise. Some of the discussion is; 1) should the rifle be carried in the trunk or a special carrier like the shot gun? 2) should it replace the shotgun? 3) what is the agency's need, or who should have one.
As you brought out, a full auto generally does not fit into normal LEO operational goals.
I also think it is a boy thing, to have the bigest and badest toy even when there is little need or use for it.
x SF med
06-23-2006, 12:46
for a LEO case, IMHO, go for the 'one shot one kill' -if it's turned into a full auto firefight, use your snipers to take out the heavy weapons, there are going to be too many collateral casualties if you return auto w/ auto.
Endorphin Rush
06-23-2006, 14:00
I'll start by revealing that our team has 3 M4A1's with the auto-fire selector, the rest are just M4's with three round burst capability. Those weapons issued with the auto-fire selector are assigned to the numbers one-thru-three men on our entry team. As a note, these weapons were obtained via a grant and were not specifically sought out for their auto-fire capability.
The need for auto-fire is practically non-existant. Very little can be accomplished with auto-fire that can't be better accomplished with well-aimed, effeciently-applied doses of single fire. As a matter of fact, we have moved away from training "double taps" or "hammers" and have heavily trained towards "controlled pairs" or controlled multiples of any number combination. Each trigger press required a sight picture, in other words. One trigger press = one critical mass impact.
With that said, auto-fire is not necessarily spray and pray fire. Within very strict parameters, auto-fire can be accurately applied. For example, within 10 meters range, and from a stationary position, I can consistently place a 28 round magazine on an 8 1/2 x 12 inch piece of paper. I can visualize my aimpoint's red dot on the paper the entire time. But, before anyone is confused by that statement and feels the need to ask...I/we have no plan for employing auto-fire in ANY actual call-out. Refer to the above paragraph for my/our philosophy.
As for the "bag guys have auto weapons...police should have auto weapons" argument. I don't buy it for a second. I do believe that quite a few police departments need to acquire more effective/appropriate arms to combat that and other eventualities, but none of that has to do with the ability to deploy auto-fire.
Peregrino
06-23-2006, 14:05
Full auto weapons in the hands of LEOs are a fact of life. The horses are already out of the barn, it's too late to shut the door. The important question is: "What can be done to mitigate the risks inherent in the indiscriminate use of automatic weapons?" Fortunately most LEO agencies are cognizant of the liabilities and the smart ones have ROE and training requirements. Personally I don't care where/from whom they get training, so long as they get something from someone. Anything (caveat - certified and legally reviewed; lawyers and the threat of lawsuits can do a lot to control/reduce outright stupidity) is better than nothing. Motivated users will seek quality training, unmotivated ones won't learn/retain training no matter how good it is. My experience teaching US soldiers and LBGs was that the more training and experience they had (and the better the quality of the soldier/leadership), the less likely they were to use automatic fire inappropriately. YMMV. Peregrino
Auto fire from the enemy, Auto Spray Fire then run, like in Iraq is efective psychological as well as convinient for the enemy. It is also good for covering fire for quick short movement i.e........crossing a hallway. Someone help me but what was the name of the Assault Rifle the Germans built in the beginning of WWII with us involved, around 1941 believe it was the first Assault Rifle Built). It was the predecessor to the AK. German Generals ruled it out because of the 30 round clip and Soldiers would waste Ammo. They would have whooped some as on us with that up against the Garand. Imagine equipping our guys with M16" in those days. Any thoughts on this.
Gene Econ
06-23-2006, 18:34
how long/much training do think is necessary for experienced shooters to become profecient in fully automatic carbine fire? Including sustainment training.
Five-O
My experience FWIW. Initially about a half hour and five or six magazines. About ten minutes and two magazines every time someone trains thereafter.
We did train on automatic fire with the M-16A1's. Aside from the prone with that cheapo bipod and pulling back on the sling (Automatic Rifleman), we trained on Quick Kill using both semi and fully automatic. Guys got pretty good at keeping most of a twenty round magazine in a man size target at about 25 yards with the A-1 after figuring out how to control the rise of the muzzle, and once they got over the fact they were shooting on full auto. It didn't require a bunch of training -- just some experience.
The coolness wore off after a couple of magazines and the guys tended to stick with the semi auto mode after that.
We train guys to shoot movers today using burst fire as well as semi automatic rapid fire. The burst mode increases the probability of a hit on a moving target over semi automatic firing to about 300 but semi auto appears to be a better choice past that range. That one has been proven to me enough times that I no longer argue over it.
Just like thirty years ago, after a couple of magazines fired in burst mode, the guys tend to lose interest and you rarely see them go to burst there after.
Being a LEA, no doubt you guys will use a twenty foot long pole to vault over the mouseturd of automatic firing. In the Army the pole is only about ten feet long.
Gene
kgoerz,
The German AR would be the Stg 44 IIRC.
Smokin Joe
06-23-2006, 19:15
I carry a rifle every day as a rural LEO. A few individuals in my department who have the ear of the Sheriff convienced him to allow some "certain" individuals to have full auto's. I protested long and hard against them carrying full-auto rifles for several reasons.
1. Lack of training
2. Lack of accessible ammo (for reloads) if they ever used full auto
3. There is NO LEO scenario that anyone can think of that will convience me that a full auto rifle is the BEST answer too. Because, if there was I would have a SAW in my truck instead of an AR-15.
4. LEO'S are personally accountable for every single round they send down range, why would I or any other LEO introduce less control over this fact. By allowing an untrained or under trained individual to utilize full auto in an already HIGHLY stressful event such as shooting someone, you introduce less control and more liablity.
5. There is no situation I can't take care of on semi-auto that can be taken care of more effectively with full-auto.
Full auto is a liabilty for LEO's not an assest.
Just my .02 cents
Peregrino
06-23-2006, 20:24
3. There is NO LEO scenario that anyone can think of that will convience me that a full auto rifle is the BEST answer too. Because, if there was I would have a SAW in my truck instead of an AR-15.
Full auto is a liabilty for LEO's not an assest.
Just my .02 cents
SJ - Check out the PKMs DSA is offering in 7.62mm (.308) ;) . The next time the Federales do a cross-border incursion you can respond appropriately with a real "auto-getum" machinegun (since Homeland Security says it's not a military problem, it's got to be that elusive LEO scenario you're looking for :p ). Sadly, human nature being what it is, nothing can stop the proliferation of LEOs w/automatic weapons. It'll take losing lawsuits with huge settlements (that can only happen after a PR disaster - e.g. children getting killed) to scare politicians/bureaucrats into imposing limits.
Assault rifles (and similar "personal" weapons capable of automatic fire) do have legitimate uses. The majority of them I can think of are purely military but some "SWAT" (I don't like the drama associated with it either - but it does communicate the idea) scenarios could be argued. On the other hand I believe machine guns in the posession of law enforcement are a population control tool straight out of every totalitarian regime's playbook. And the argument about gangsters is a non-starter too. If I'm being shot at I would much rather the bad guys were in "spray and pray" mode than taking single well aimed shots. (Machine guns are a different story, I take them seriously all the time.)
The 64 Million Dollar question - how do we (concerned citizens) ensure our LEOs get at least Skill Level One training before they're allowed on the streets with these weapons? I've seen the H&K curriculuum, it's well thought out, pretty comprehensive, and does a good job of selling their product responsibly. I haven't seen the NRA course but they have good lawyers and a respected tradition of LEO training support so I'm inclined to believe it's at least adequate. (Can anybody with experience confirm/deny?) I know Gunsite and Blackwater have courses, I assume Thunder Ranch and Valhalla can come up with something if the market supports it, there are a few reputable individuals with travelling road shows who teach to an exclusive audience, and then there's every T,D, & H with access to the weapons and a range who would like to make money off of the gullible. (The previous statements are predicated on the quality of the instructors presenting the training - the best program in the world is at the mercy of the individual conducting the training.) Back to TS's question - what's out there and who does a good job? Only training and familiarity will deglamorize the infatuation the uneducated have for these weapons. Now that they're out there the most effective way to reduce risk/increase safety is to adjust the "nut" behind the trigger. The best safety is a well trained user. Peregrino
Smokin Joe
06-23-2006, 21:58
SJ - Check out the PKMs DSA is offering in 7.62mm (.308) ;) . The next time the Federales do a cross-border incursion you can respond appropriately with a real "auto-getum" machinegun (since Homeland Security says it's not a military problem, it's got to be that elusive LEO scenario you're looking for :p ).
Well then, if open land warfare on U.S. soil is an LEO problem then you got me there. Of all of the scenarios I have table topped with others this one was never brought up. I shall bring it up tomorrow morning at work, maybe we can get a grant too. Except I want a GAU on an Up armored HUMMV :D
for a LEO case, IMHO, go for the 'one shot one kill' -if it's turned into a full auto firefight, use your snipers to take out the heavy weapons, there are going to be too many collateral casualties if you return auto w/ auto.
My thoughts exactly.
Team Sergeant
06-24-2006, 08:28
And the argument about gangsters is a non-starter too. If I'm being shot at I would much rather the bad guys were in "spray and pray" mode than taking single well aimed shots. (Machine guns are a different story, I take them seriously all the time.)
Peregrino
I was waiting for someone to make this point.....
Autofire from an assault rifle is a mistake and will cause unwarranted collateral damage. One shot one kill is the perfect thought process while at the other end is a belt fed M2HB that will also do the job but at what cost?
The goal should be the "controlled pair" with an assault rifle, or submachinegun. And if the subject is wearing armor and does not go down a controlled pair to the head makes quick work of the BG.
TS
Team Sergeant
06-24-2006, 08:47
The need for auto-fire is practically non-existant. Very little can be accomplished with auto-fire that can't be better accomplished with well-aimed, effeciently-applied doses of single fire. As a matter of fact, we have moved away from training "double taps" or "hammers" and have heavily trained towards "controlled pairs" or controlled multiples of any number combination. Each trigger press required a sight picture, in other words. One trigger press = one critical mass impact.
I could not have said it better.
If one does not have a "sight-picture" when the trigger is pressed IMO one should not be issued a weapon.
If a person utilizes the "spray and pray" method I hope its on a hollywood movie set.
TS
Peregrino
06-24-2006, 08:53
Well then, if open land warfare on U.S. soil is an LEO problem then you got me there. Of all of the scenarios I have table topped with others this one was never brought up. I shall bring it up tomorrow morning at work, maybe we can get a grant too. Except I want a GAU on an Up armored HUMMV :D
SJ - Stick with the PKM and a Toyota pickup. Halfway to an APC just means you get overconfident but don't have the a** to back it up. Not to mention the log tail it takes to keep the HUMMER/GAU in action. Don't get me wrong, the guys are doing great work with this combo in the sandbox but can you/your department support it in Flagstaff? In the right hands, the Toyota/PKM is appropriate technology that's easy to support and surprisingly flexible (from a tactical sense). And if it gets really bad you stick the MG under a tarp/behind the seat and run & hide to try again later. Can't do that with your picks. (I've learned a lot from my LBGs/the adversaries over the years.) FWIW - Peregrino
racing_snake
06-24-2006, 08:59
I'm curious as to why the phrase double tap has been contorted into controlled pair...I mean it's merely semantics. But, now apparently if a soldier were to say he took down an insurgent with a double-tap technique he would be accused of being a murderer?
Team Sergeant
06-24-2006, 09:08
I'm curious as to why the phrase double tap has been contorted into controlled pair...I mean it's merely semantics. But, now apparently if a soldier were to say he took down an insurgent with a double-tap technique he would be accused of being a murderer?
"Double Tap" is understood by those that have been doing it a few years. "Controlled Pairs" is probably a better term that would better describe what action is actually desired. While anyone can double tap, in order to accomplish the feat with surgical skill the tap better be a controlled tap -controlled pair.
I've no idea where you’re going with this.
But, now apparently if a soldier were to say he took down an insurgent with a double-tap technique he would be accused of being a murderer?
Team Sergeant
06-24-2006, 09:17
For example, within 10 meters range, and from a stationary position, I can consistently place a 28 round magazine on an 8 1/2 x 12 inch piece of paper. I can visualize my aimpoint's red dot on the paper the entire time. But, before anyone is confused by that statement and feels the need to ask...I/we have no plan for employing auto-fire in ANY actual call-out. Refer to the above paragraph for my/our philosophy.
Here's some food for thought; in the time it takes someone to accurately fire 28 rounds on a single 10 meter target someone else could have placed three to five well aimed shots on three to five other targets......
Firing on full auto does not lend itself to accessing the impact of your rounds, a controlled pair to the chest will quickly determine whether or not the BG is sporting armor......;)
Basicload
06-24-2006, 09:23
Snake it is not semantics at all.
When discussing the subject of close quarters marksmanship (CQM), the Special Forces, Ranger, and conventional Army Advanced Urban Combat Manuals break shooting engagements into 4 types.
1. Slow aimed Fire
2. Controlled Pairs
3. Double taps
4. Hammers
Each of these has a specific meaning and are catagorized by the time between shots, the recoil manipulation envolved, reaquisition of the aiming point/sights, and the accuracy of the follow up shot.
These are engagement definitions NOT semantics.
CoLawman
06-24-2006, 09:37
[QUOTE=Basicload]Actually the LAPD SWAT officer was firing an MP-5 and he was not suppressing the guy, he was engaging on automatic into the street under the car in order to skip the rounds into the target. he was extremely successful, striking the robber in the inner thigh where the robber had no IIIA coverage like he had on the front of his legs and causing a femoral bleed which incapacitated him almost instantly.
You are absolutely right........but you left out the beginning to which I was referring. Initially suppressive fire was employed to get the badguy ducking. What occurred after he "blinked" is what you described.
NousDefionsDoc
06-24-2006, 09:55
Snake it is not semantics at all.
When discussing the subject of close quarters marksmanship (CQM), the Special Forces, Ranger, and conventional Army Advanced Urban Combat Manuals break shooting engagements into 4 types.
1. Slow aimed Fire
2. Controlled Pairs
3. Double taps
4. Hammers
Each of these has a specific meaning and are catagorized by the time between shots, the recoil manipulation envolved, reaquisition of the aiming point/sights, and the accuracy of the follow up shot.
These are engagement definitions NOT semantics.
And dictated by distance and tactical situation. Excellent post.
Racing Snake,
You are out of your depth - you would probably be better served by following APL Instructions to "Hold all questions 'til the end."
There are no semantics in combat marksmanship as conducted by professionals - there are only The Eight and TTPs to get one into the most advantageous position to apply them.
Team Sergeant
06-24-2006, 10:17
TS,
To answer your question.
I'm not sure that I totally agree with your assertions on sub-guns though.
I have driven tacks with an MP5 on Auto at CQB distances. I also don't like bringing a pistol caliber to a gun fight and when I have been forced to use the MP-5, I have taken the montra of "anything worth shooting, is worth shooting 8-12 times".
The selector on the MP-5 sucks so bad that several times I would end up getting auto even when I only wanted semi. I have seen MP-5 receivers with set screws tapped in them to prevent the selector from going to auto because of this problem.
At most distances that a SWAT team operates in, the MP-5 is very controlable. I still submit and agree with you that a semi auto carbine is a better choice in almost all cases.
That’s fine you are entitled to your opinion. (I've also spent some time driving tacks with an MP-5, MP5SD and an MP5K, even received a silly hat from a COL for being silly fast with an MP-5.)
Next time you’re tack driving full auto with an MP-5 try indexing from tgt to tgt at various ranges and various distances apart.
At most distances that a SWAT team operates in, the MP-5 is very controlable.
And next time you're in a super "Wal-Mart" you may want to re-think that statement.....;) I would agree with you when SWAT is conducting a drug-raid on a known crack house, but making a surgical shot down a 300 meter high school hallway will separate the men from the boys....;)
TS
.....Within very strict parameters, auto-fire can be accurately applied. For example, within 10 meters range, and from a stationary position, I can consistently place a 28 round magazine on an 8 1/2 x 12 inch piece of paper. I can visualize my aimpoint's red dot on the paper the entire time.....
Endorphin Rush;
Of the QPs who post here I'm one of the "little dogs on the block" when it comes to CQB type shooting. That's why I mostly stay out of these threads. Never was a pistol guy but I can "deal" with open sights on an M16.
I find my 28/30 rounds into an 8 inch circle at 25 meters rapid fire semi-auto to be marginal shooting for the guys I served with.
I just never could get into burst or auto when engaging a point target. Two fast ones into the target works better than 1 and the rest someplace else.
Just my opinion but with close in work it would be a coin flip but start getting some range involved, over 25Ms to 100Ms and you'll see a big difference in hits on target.
Man, I just got to get one of them EOTec sights to play with.
OK. I yapped a bit and will let the Big Dogs bark some more.
Pete
Basicload
06-24-2006, 10:36
NDD, You got me. I forgot distance to target and threat to my list of factors. Great points.
TS. Points taken. As stated, the MP-5 is not my first choice and you have brought up about every situation (multiple engagements and distant targets) that push auto fire to its breaking point, ESPECIALLY for the LEOs that do not get the ammuntion or other resources to maintain a high degree of profeciency.
That choice of platform is usually dictated by factors other than "what is the best weapon to kill people" IE: concealability or reduced signature. Preaching......choir, I know, but there are those that read this and wonder "why would he carry that gun if he did not think it was the best gun"?
Sub-guns are a step above pistols when planning to get in a fight. Carbines and Battle rifles reign supreme.
I ALWAYS bring a carbine to Wal-mart (or Haji-mart for that matter). Everyone knows that.:D
Good discussion
Team Sergeant
06-24-2006, 11:07
NDD, You got me. I forgot distance to target and threat to my list of factors. Great points.
TS. Points taken. As stated, the MP-5 is not my first choice and you have brought up about every situation (multiple engagements and distant targets) that push auto fire to its breaking point, ESPECIALLY for the LEOs that do not get the ammuntion or other resources to maintain a high degree of profeciency.
That choice of platform is usually dictated by factors other than "what is the best weapon to kill people" IE: concealability or reduced signature. Preaching......choir, I know, but there are those that read this and wonder "why would he carry that gun if he did not think it was the best gun"?
Sub-guns are a step above pistols when planning to get in a fight. Carbines and Battle rifles reign supreme.
I ALWAYS bring a carbine to Wal-mart (or Haji-mart for that matter). Everyone knows that.:D
Good discussion
IMO LEO's should have assault rifles, they just don't need to employ them in the rock and roll mode.
Sub-guns should be fixed to three shot burst also, access the tgt and repeat if necessary.
Agree, good discussion.......
I'm going after those "double" thirty rd magazine users next.... saw them being employed on "Dallas SWAT", all I have is one question, WHY?:rolleyes:
NousDefionsDoc
06-24-2006, 11:18
I couldn't agree more with both of you. I always liked the 5.56 not only inside, but to get there. Of course we have smaller targets.;)
I would not want to take that 300 meter aisle shot with an MP5. A lot of people might be surprised at just how long some shots can be in an urban AO.
Somebody was talking about it not long ago in a newsletter or magazine or something.
Want an eye opener? Check your own environment for distance and cover. You will be surprised at just how little cover there is in your home and how far you might have to shoot.
Excellent discussion.
My thoughts is that this is learning from training experience issue and can the agencies afford it. I think with the military and LE agency training is often cut short. An example would be the burst selector, IMHO, was a short cut. It takes time to teach a person to burst. Bursting is the most effective use of full auto in most case scenarios. A bust selector cuts this training from the program.
In RVN, full auto was consider the only choice when walking point or getting over run. Semi auto + Adeline was sufficient to maintain accurate fire at a maximum rate that did not exhaust one's ammo supply too quickly. Most Marines in time would not generally use full auto. Generally at the range we fought at, sights was not used, we aimed over the barrel and watch our results. (eotec kind of does this) Sighting over allowed for a greater view of what was going on and limited tunnel vision especially with multiple targets shooting back. Most of this came with time in the bush, other words experience. Second tour Marines fought a lot different than cherries and were more effective.
The effectiveness then, I would say, came from actual experience which is nearly impossible to produce in a peace time setting. The other answer to experience, that would also enhance and speed up ones learning from actual experience would be Excellent training which seems to be cost prohibited for many agencies.
Military and LE has similar issues with training. Time and Money. The one local department that I had some close relationship with, time and money was a major handicap. A average officer starting his/her shift had over 8 hours of paper work that needed to be done. Then add the calls during the shift, their work load seem endless and they would never get caught up.
One of the state troopers I talked to was issued a M16, but it was converted back to semi auto, the full auto components were removed. As was mentioned previously legal requirements for LEO is a serious consideration in adopting new weapons, ammo, training, ROE etc.
In Oregon (3 Million people) the needs for most LE department may never approach the needs of the much larger departments in the massive metro areas elsewhere in the USA. Those larger departments may have sufficient resources to to develop ROE and officers while being to provide adequate training for the use of full auto weapons. I think the best example are the SWAT Teams. Only Oregon departments that I know that have them are the larger metro areas. Smaller agencies will borrows a larger agency SWAT is the need arises.
It seems there is more talk now of a need of a LEO that is not SWAT but has more training than a patrol office who is issued a full auto rifle. The major obstacle I see is: 1) cost of training and obtaining experience. 2) legal requirements. 3) actual cost benefit of such a position.
I think the 3rd. point is where I was leading in this discussion. Cost benefits of the new full auto augmented LEO. Can agencies afford the up keep of such a animal, the continuous training to maintain skill levels? Is there sufficient needs for this new position to pull a patrol officer from current duty or to hire a additional officer.
As A LEO I would have loved to been issued a full auto, but practically, outside of a ego boost, what real value would it have been?
I'll throw in one more thought....
Threat, Tactics and Training.
Who is the target/threat, one home boy with an assault rifle hiding in his mother's house, two bank robbers in a robbery gone bad or 4-6 nut cases who want to take over the city and who have a little training?
The average street cop is not ready for a shoot out with a few half trained nuts involving fire and maneuver. Auto or semi auto.
If the agencies feel the need to issue auto weapons for a larger threat then they need to run basic fire and maneuver courses involving 6-8 street cops and change how they feed reinforcements into the engagement. A car at a time until it's contained and wait for the SRT?
I find a good burst of automatic fire into a window as your buddy moves to his next position a good use of that type of fire.
Pete
I must say the Riverside, CA guys did get the drop on me once. A very quiet "Freeze:eek: , don't move" coming from the dark about 4 feet away. I told them I didn't hear them coming and they said that was the way they responded to all "Officer needs assistance" calls in the barrio. They didn't like to get ambushed when they responded to the call.
OK, that's it for me and I'm going back up on the porch.
I'll throw in one more thought....
Threat, Tactics and Training.
Who is the target/threat, one home boy with an assault rifle hiding in his mother's house, two bank robbers in a robbery gone bad or 4-6 nut cases who want to take over the city and who have a little training?
The average street cop is not ready for a shoot out with a few half trained nuts involving fire and maneuver. Auto or semi auto.
If the agencies feel the need to issue auto weapons for a larger threat then they need to run basic fire and maneuver courses involving 6-8 street cops and change how they feed reinforcements into the engagement. A car at a time until it's contained and wait for the SRT?
I find a good burst of automatic fire into a window as your buddy moves to his next position a good use of that type of fire.
Pete
I must say the Riverside, CA guys did get the drop on me once. A very quiet "Freeze:eek: , don't move" coming from the dark about 4 feet away. I told them I didn't hear them coming and they said that was the way they responded to all "Officer needs assistance" calls in the barrio. They didn't like to get ambushed when they responded to the call.
OK, that's it for me and I'm going back up on the porch.
What I have seen is that the Partol officer needs to assess the situation, stabilize and contain. During containment additional resources are called up as need to maintain containment until sufficient resources are availbable to remove the threat. It use to be based on the California Emergency Management model of incident responce. There is a new name for it now (forgot the new name, just had a class on it). It was developed to assest the situation and bring up resources necessary to deal with it. It can be a one on one situation or grow as large as neceassary to beable to effectively contain and control the problem.
The resource base covers a large number of agencies, local to state to Federal and is expandable to beable to handle any emergency situtation.
Smokin Joe
06-24-2006, 17:26
SJ - Stick with the PKM and a Toyota pickup. Halfway to an APC just means you get overconfident but don't have the a** to back it up. Not to mention the log tail it takes to keep the HUMMER/GAU in action. Don't get me wrong, the guys are doing great work with this combo in the sandbox but can you/your department support it in Flagstaff? In the right hands, the Toyota/PKM is appropriate technology that's easy to support and surprisingly flexible (from a tactical sense). And if it gets really bad you stick the MG under a tarp/behind the seat and run & hide to try again later. Can't do that with your picks. (I've learned a lot from my LBGs/the adversaries over the years.) FWIW - Peregrino
Great points I'm going to try and shut up now. ;)
I think the 3rd. point is where I was leading in this discussion. Cost benefits of the new full auto augmented LEO. Can agencies afford the up keep of such a animal, the continuous training to maintain skill levels? Is there sufficient needs for this new position to pull a patrol officer from current duty or to hire a additional officer.
HOLLiS,
Some agencies already have these types of officers kind of a rolling QRF that only respond as back up or really hot calls. They are a hell of an assest when you need help but not too many agencies can afford them.
HOLLiS,
Some agencies already have these types of officers kind of a rolling QRF that only respond as back up or really hot calls. They are a hell of an assest when you need help but not too many agencies can afford them.
That is probably the biggest problem here in Oregon, is affordability. Fortunately we have pretty good agency to agency cooperation.
x SF med
06-24-2006, 19:37
I'm going after those "double" thirty rd magazine users next.... saw them being employed on "Dallas SWAT", all I have is one question, WHY?
Because it's cool, and they saw Chuck using them in "Missing in Action 1,2, 3, 4 etc.." never liked the taped magazines myself, I always got jams or poorly seated mags.
Endorphin Rush
06-24-2006, 20:39
Endorphin Rush;
Of the QPs who post here I'm one of the "little dogs on the block" when it comes to CQB type shooting. That's why I mostly stay out of these threads. Never was a pistol guy but I can "deal" with open sights on an M16.
I find my 28/30 rounds into an 8 inch circle at 25 meters rapid fire semi-auto to be marginal shooting for the guys I served with.
I just never could get into burst or auto when engaging a point target. Two fast ones into the target works better than 1 and the rest someplace else.
Just my opinion but with close in work it would be a coin flip but start getting some range involved, over 25Ms to 100Ms and you'll see a big difference in hits on target.
Man, I just got to get one of them EOTec sights to play with.
OK. I yapped a bit and will let the Big Dogs bark some more.
Pete
Pete,
I agree indubitably with yourself and the Team Sergeant on this. Some days I should just learn to stop talking. My only point in making the statement was to show that not all auto-fire has to be "spray and pray". I in no way believed the described feat to be impressive.
As a matter of fact, the only reason I responded to this was that the Team Sergeant queried LEO's. Had he asked for Subject Matter Experts only, you would not have seen my name here. I am just a pup on the porch myself. I learn far more here than I could ever contribute.
Thanks for some thought provoking discussions!!!
Very informative thread indeed.
IMHO (may echo what has already been said)
No real need for fully auto from an assualt rifle, be it LEO or Military.
Innacurate., collateral damage and blatent waste of ammunition. For fully auto in Mil you/we have the SAW/MAG. I cannot imagine a LEO situation that would require fully auto, even in a 'cover' situation, good cover fire could be achieved by consistant and controlled single shots fired rapidly as opposed to just letting loose.
One of the worst scenarios in a military situation i can think of is shooting fully auto whilst trying to cover ground. Probably all your rounds will be high and you'll be too concerned with controlling your rising muzzle than on what is in front of you.ie: the bad guy
IMO, fuly auto does however have a place, on the range for fun, it is fun :-)
My .02
Hoepoe
NousDefionsDoc
06-25-2006, 07:21
I have seen many try to justify with incidents such as that former Marine shooting the LEOs at the convenience store. The problem is, they don't understand the problem, IMO.
"Dallas SWAT"
never liked the taped magazines myself, I always got jams or poorly seated mags.
Man you just got to love that Dallas SWAT show.
Anyways - MAGs and Tape.
Had Guys that taped their 5.56 mags with white tape for the snow. While on the range - they had problems with them.
Bottom line was - no PCC done. From what I saw they never put the mags into their M-4. I painted the bottom half of ours - this way if they fell out onto the snow. You could recover them if you had to.
As TS said Live and Learn
Team Sergeant
06-25-2006, 08:44
I'm going after those "double" thirty rd magazine users next.... saw them being employed on "Dallas SWAT", all I have is one question, WHY?
Because it's cool, and they saw Chuck using them in "Missing in Action 1,2, 3, 4 etc.." never liked the taped magazines myself, I always got jams or poorly seated mags.
This is what I'm talking about;
http://www.odspec.com/AR15/AR15_redimag.html
ObliqueApproach
06-25-2006, 09:02
My two TS's required DCU top tucked in, top button open, good reload drills, empties inside the open shirt for later recovery. Practice, practice, practice will generally overcome gadgetry! Ask an Abrams crew?!?!? 6 rounds per minute, no autoloader!:lifter
No real need for fully auto from an assualt rifle, be it LEO or Military.
Innacurate., collateral damage and blatent waste of ammunition. For fully auto in Mil you/we have the SAW/MAG. I cannot imagine a LEO situation that would require fully auto, even in a 'cover' situation, good cover fire could be achieved by consistant and controlled single shots fired rapidly as opposed to just letting loose.
One of the worst scenarios in a military situation i can think of is shooting fully auto whilst trying to cover ground. Probably all your rounds will be high and you'll be too concerned with controlling your rising muzzle than on what is in front of you.ie: the bad guy
IMO, fuly auto does however have a place, on the range for fun, it is fun :-)
My .02
Hoepoe
Hoepoe, From my experience Full auto is necessary, as with any tool one needs to undertand how to use it and when to use it.
As I mentioned earlier when walking point and when your position is being over runned is when we (Marines in my unit) felt full auto (full rock N roll) was needed mostly. In a ambush it is a matter of seconds that life is based on. A ambushed team can pull a reversal, but it is in the first few moments that it can be accomplished.
There is probably a time when spray and pray has a purpose. Some units would have a mad moment, it was more for mental health than anything else. Spraying the follage for a sniper is done. That was done when the general direction was thought to be known but exact location was not known. It was done to cover movement to reposition some Marines to take out the sniper or to sweep for the sniper.
I can not imagine those situations in a LE setting.
Good point Hollis.
In every situation i've been in including ambushes, i have not seen or felt that auto (other than the machine gunner) would have helped us or been suited in any way.
My point was not that fully auto is never neccessary, it was the the mcahine gunner was there for that.
Not knocking what you wrote, but putting my points forward.
Hoepoe
Basicload
06-25-2006, 10:41
TS, once again I shall offer an attempt at an explaination and an opposing view point.
Redi Mag. I use one. I have used it for several years.
What it is NOT. Faster than out of the pouch re-loads.
Why carry one? Magazine supported low-prone. Two mags are better than one for shooting stability.
Why would a cop carry one? I think that a redi-mag is a great item for "patrol carbines" because a uniformed officer grabs his rifle and he has 60 rounds handy. LEOs do not carry "belt kit" as a general rule.
This does not explain why an assaulter(SWAT) would need one, but for a uniformed patrol officer I think two mags on the rifle is a good thing.
While on the subject of worst nightmare active shooter patrol offier responses, I am an advocate of a plate carrier with three rifle mags and a first aid pouch in the trunk too. Nothing ninja sexy with wrap around cumberbunds but something simple. Over the head with two fastex around the sides is all they need and actually two unbuckled flopping plates are better than none.
The only consideration would be Back Face Deformation impacting metallic objects under the carrier such as badges, pins, and whistles. I consider the subsequent blunt force trauma to be the lesser of two evils.
Anyway I digress.
Redi-mag good tool but heavy. NOT Faster.:cool:
Team Sergeant
06-25-2006, 10:47
Hoepoe, From my experience Full auto is necessary, as with any tool one needs to undertand how to use it and when to use it.
As I mentioned earlier when walking point and when your position is being over runned is when we (Marines in my unit) felt full auto (full rock N roll) was needed mostly. In a ambush it is a matter of seconds that life is based on. A ambushed team can pull a reversal, but it is in the first few moments that it can be accomplished.
There is probably a time when spray and pray has a purpose. Some units would have a mad moment, it was more for mental health than anything else. Spraying the follage for a sniper is done. That was done when the general direction was thought to be known but exact location was not known. It was done to cover movement to reposition some Marines to take out the sniper or to sweep for the sniper.
I can not imagine those situations in a LE setting.
I agree with you Hollis.
In the military there may be a time and a place for that sort of fire. But I’m thinking the American LEO’s don’t have the same sort of ROE we in the military adhere to and would not get away with such an action especially if innocent bipeds were injured or killed in the process.
You also touched on the reason that this sort of fire is sometimes effective; it has a psychological impact, on some, especially those, “Hollywood” cultured, criminals and crazies.
And while full auto fire from an assault will frighten some, I have serious concerns if and when American LE has to face 5-10 armed “crusaders” because that same psychological impact that affects our criminals, IMO, will not affect the “crusaders” in the same manner. (Not unless they have watched a few Arnold Schawrzenegger movies.) This might result in a very “hard learned” lesson in islamic terrorism.
This is yet another reason civilian “tactical” shooting schools, taught by those that have never themselves been in harms way or have never faced an armed crusader don’t have a clue what is actually required to face such sub-human species and prevail. This is where the surgical application of assault rifle fires will far exceed those full auto fires from the same weapons platforms and the main rationale for teaching accuracy over firepower.
My .02
TS
Team Sergeant
06-25-2006, 10:54
Why carry one? Magazine supported low-prone. Two mags are better than one for shooting stability.
BasicLoad,
"Magazine supported low-prone."
I cannot say I've ever heard that taught anywhere by anyone.
TS
Where's Gene Econ? ;)
FM 3-22-9
RIFLE MARKSMANSHIP
M16A1, M16A2/3, M16A4 and M4 CARBINE
3-2. MALFUNCTIONS
Malfunctions are caused by procedural or mechanical failures of the rifle, magazine, or ammunition. Pre-firing checks and serviceability inspections identify potential problems before they become malfunctions. This paragraph describes the primary categories of malfunctions.
a. Failure to Feed, Chamber, or Lock. A malfunction can occur when loading the rifle or during the cycle of operation. Once the magazine has been loaded into the rifle, the forward movement of the bolt carrier group could lack enough force (generated by the expansion of the action spring) to feed, chamber, or lock the bolt (Figure 3-1).
(1) Probable Causes. The cause could be the result of one or more of the following:
Excess accumulation of dirt or fouling in and around the bolt and bolt carrier.
Defective magazine (dented, bulged, or a weak magazine spring).
Improperly loaded magazine.
Defective round (projectile forced back into the cartridge case, which could result in a stubbed round or the base of the previous cartridge could be separated, leaving the remainder in the chamber).
Damaged or broken action spring.
Exterior accumulation of dirt in the lower receiver extension.
Fouled gas tube resulting in short recoil.
A magazine resting on the ground or pushed forward could cause an improper lock.
Peregrino
06-25-2006, 11:32
Redi Mag. I use one. I have used it for several years.
BL - Not to worry - I use one too. ;) Different strokes for different folks. Like everything they have pros and cons. I like the convenience of extra ammo immediately available. I'm not an action guy anymore so I don't keep a loaded kit handy - this lets me have extra ammo where I can get it if I'm checking strange noises in the dark. I don't like the weight and balance issues. Personally, I do think it's faster than extrating a fresh mag from a pouch - provided you're willing to allow the expended mag to drop. It's a lot better than taped mags or MagCinch "contraptions." Once it's mounted, it's there, the protrusion doesn't bother me, the option to carry extra ammo is always available, and I don't have to keep a mag in it 24/7. Keep an open mind, not all gadgets are worthless (though some are more about separating money from wallets than doing anything useful). My .02 - Peregrino
Team Sergeant
06-25-2006, 11:48
Why would a cop carry one? I think that a redi-mag is a great item for "patrol carbines" because a uniformed officer grabs his rifle and he has 60 rounds handy. LEOs do not carry "belt kit" as a general rule.
This I could support, but I'm thinking once I actually have to change mags, the SWAT or national guard better be closing on my position very fast.....
I'd rather carry one mag in weapon, pistol secondary. I would think be enough for most patrol officer situations.
This I could support, but I'm thinking once I actually have to change mags, the SWAT or national guard better be closing on my position very fast.....
I'd rather carry one mag in weapon, pistol secondary. I would think be enough for most patrol officer situations.
TS, I think part of the problem is most LEO do not have sufficient training and experience to have the confidence with their equipment as you have. I maybe a little old fashion, but unskilled people like having some sort of placebo that they believe will get them through one of those really nasty situation. That placebo maybe some sort of whistle or bells attached to their waist belt, firearm, lock in the trunk of their unit or hanging around their neck. A LA LEO once told me a Patrol officer was more a roving secretary than anything else.
The unkown is very scary to a newby, there are too many unknowns in their mind. Skill, training and experience will change that. Often most departments just don't have the money to commit their officers to that intensive type of training or feel it is not worth it in practical terms.
Also I think there is some wishful thinking associate with having "extra equipment". Some how regardless as bad as it gets, the person will always walk away if they have the right equipment.
This discussion has brought up some excellent points.
I do however have a difficult time giving any credit towards the Police Shotgun loaded with buckshot. Basically for the same reasons stated here with "full-auto" fire. We all know what happens when you fire a 00buck round at distances farther than 15-20 yards, VangComp Mods excluded. As LEO's we are mandated by P&P to account for everything that comes out of a barrel. Distances stated above spread the shot out so far in some cases as to making a "hit" with any of the shot a 50/50 chance.
An example would be, if I were to fire that shotgun on a slight angle say from the prone, up towards a subject, at distances greater than 15 yards. Will say for practical purposes that the BG is firing a full-auto weapon and attacking you as you arrive on scene. Allot of buckshot is going to go where I don't want it and people are going to be in danger of a incapacitating/lethal hit(s) in an urban enviroment. Other than for "special" situations (ie., SWAT), loading the shotgun with the first round as a slug may be a better choice. I am betting that unless the LEO has recieved some intense training or past experience with being shot at, that first round is going to miss. Anybody else agree?
What if during the North Hollywood shootout offciers did arrive with full auto weapons and when the BG's were standing in front of the part of the bank that had no windows or doors that from a rest, full auto fire wouldn't have either made them pause and/or obtain hits with their backstop being marble or cement?
Basicload
06-25-2006, 13:15
Actually the myth of never resting one's magazine on the ground was debunked several years ago and it is now taught during combat marksmanship in some of the "longer" SOF military training courses.
I'll admit that I thought that they were smoking crack when they told me to do it the first time. Kind of like thumbs forward.
The inclusion of forward grips on assault rifles has reduced the ability to use external forearm support (sandbags, etc.) and this has got more and more people going to the magazine for support. Two magazines touching the ground provides less lateral movement. The magazine supported position becomes even more advantagous during high heart rate "stress shooting" events because there is a greatly reduced vertical movement from pulse rate transfer to the weapon associated with prone unsupported or sling supported fire.
I'm not saying that its the end all be all, however when the situation allows it, I will use magazine supported position.
Basicload
06-25-2006, 13:26
The malfunction stated in FM 3-33-9 is a result of the steel magazine catch warping the square magazine "notch" on the left side of the magazine. This is due to excessive use and/or pressure to the magizing while inserted in the rifle over time.
Normally the springs in an AR Mag will go bad causing failure to feed "bolt over ride" long before the magazine itself is warped.
in either case malfunctions are directly related to magazine related problems.
Proper inspection and replacement of the magazines makes this a non-issue. OKAY or colt magazines ONLY (alluminimum).
The use of steel magazines also make this a non-issue because the magazine will not warp.
Either way I have never had a failure to feed or lock while shooting from the magazine supported position. YMMV
NousDefionsDoc
06-25-2006, 16:43
This is an excellent freakin' thread.
BMT (RIP)
06-25-2006, 16:56
I believe AM,QRQ30 and a few others here went to AAR School and the mother lasted a year. Maybe they will Jump in with their ideas. ;-)
BMT
Gene Econ
06-25-2006, 20:40
[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]BasicLoad, "Magazine supported low-prone."
I cannot say I've ever heard that taught anywhere by anyone. TS Where's Gene Econ? ;)
Yo TS -- I was just practicing what I preach today -- 80 shots at 600 yards.
Some guys jam the magazine into the ground and use it as a kind of monopod. Some don't. It isn't any sort of doctrine from what I can tell.
Guys with the readi mag devices like this position from what I have observed. Makes for a stable position as you have two magazines touching the ground instead of one.
Some say that placing pressure on the magazine in this manner makes for malfunctions. I don't think so as I have seen more than a few guys use this position and haven't seen any more malfunctions with them as with guys who keep the bottom of the magazine off the ground. A 30 round magazine protrudes so much that it is almost impossible to keep the bottom of it off of the ground when shooting from the prone.
Our top shooter in a course we are running right now uses his magzine as a rest on the ground when he goes prone unsupported. Haven't seen one malfunction.
I kind of look at this issue like this. The rifle and magazine were made for combat conditions. No way both could be that sensitive to the magazine being jammed into the magazine well that any extra upward pressure would cause malfunctions. Doesn't make sense to me in terms of intended purpose of the rifle and magazine which is combat.
Gene
gtcrispy
06-25-2006, 20:47
BasicLoad,
"Magazine supported low-prone."
I cannot say I've ever heard that taught anywhere by anyone.
TS
Where's Gene Econ? ;)
We used this during the Phase 2 SUT range portion.
Team Sergeant
06-26-2006, 08:05
[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]BasicLoad, "Magazine supported low-prone."
I cannot say I've ever heard that taught anywhere by anyone. TS Where's Gene Econ? ;)
Yo TS -- I was just practicing what I preach today -- 80 shots at 600 yards.
Some guys jam the magazine into the ground and use it as a kind of monopod. Some don't. It isn't any sort of doctrine from what I can tell.
Guys with the readi mag devices like this position from what I have observed. Makes for a stable position as you have two magazines touching the ground instead of one.
Some say that placing pressure on the magazine in this manner makes for malfunctions. I don't think so as I have seen more than a few guys use this position and haven't seen any more malfunctions with them as with guys who keep the bottom of the magazine off the ground. A 30 round magazine protrudes so much that it is almost impossible to keep the bottom of it off of the ground when shooting from the prone.
Our top shooter in a course we are running right now uses his magzine as a rest on the ground when he goes prone unsupported. Haven't seen one malfunction.
I kind of look at this issue like this. The rifle and magazine were made for combat conditions. No way both could be that sensitive to the magazine being jammed into the magazine well that any extra upward pressure would cause malfunctions. Doesn't make sense to me in terms of intended purpose of the rifle and magazine which is combat.
Gene
Gene,
What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete?
TS
CoLawman
06-26-2006, 08:42
I have seen many try to justify with incidents such as that former Marine shooting the LEOs at the convenience store. The problem is, they don't understand the problem, IMO.
Hmmmmmm........ And I respectfully counter with some facts:
1. I can think of no "collateral" damage as a result of LE using automatic weapons. ( Common debate point I've read here).
2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.
3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.
4. LE has evolved, like the military. The Newhall incident in the 70's changed the way we carried our reload ammo, and the way we practiced on the range. Dump pouches to Speed loaders. Dump the spent rounds as opposed to being concerned about "policiing" them up later. We switched to semi-autos from revolvers due to other incidents. We started carrying rifles as opposed to shotguns. In each of those evolutions, training was supplied to insure the transition worked. Incidents are used to improve LE, not as a means to "justify".
incommin
06-26-2006, 10:45
Two years ago three city LEO engaged an individual in a vehicle. The LEOs fired 21 rounds at the bad dude with 9mm Glocks from ranges of 25 to 40 feet. All 21 rounds struck the car (from front fender to rear door). None struck the bad guy!
I am very greatful that the three officers did not have full auto weapons.
In Vietnam I used full auto only to break contact. All other times return fire was semi auto. I have yet to read a LE after action report (incident report) from anywhere that supported the need of full auto weapons in LE!
Smokin Joe
06-26-2006, 11:01
[QUOTE=Gene Econ]
Gene,
What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete?
TS
Oooh Ooooh I know I know...
2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.
3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.
Not necessarily true for all agencies.
We offer a 3 day Carbine course, full auto is not taught, it demo'd and then shot as a familiarization course of fire, and we have some guys in our agency who carry full-auto M16A1's with no additional training.:eek:
Team Sergeant
06-26-2006, 11:12
Hmmmmmm........ And I respectfully counter with some facts:
1. I can think of no "collateral" damage as a result of LE using automatic weapons. ( Common debate point I've read here).
2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.
3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.
4. LE has evolved, like the military. The Newhall incident in the 70's changed the way we carried our reload ammo, and the way we practiced on the range. Dump pouches to Speed loaders. Dump the spent rounds as opposed to being concerned about "policiing" them up later. We switched to semi-autos from revolvers due to other incidents. We started carrying rifles as opposed to shotguns. In each of those evolutions, training was supplied to insure the transition worked. Incidents are used to improve LE, not as a means to "justify".
One big difference is that we train everyday to neutralize threats with the assault rifle, sleep with it, eat with it, take a leak with it, you get my point.
Many of the civilian schools offered are offered by other civilians and most as Smokin Joe stated are about 2-3 days in length. I don't think anyone can compare a 3 day school to 20 years carrying the same rifle.;)
(foot note, I'm not comparing all the military as we know they're are those that are in combat support/ combat service support status that carry the weapon but are not at the same training level as the combat arms soldiers)
CoLawman
06-26-2006, 13:03
Two years ago three city LEO engaged an individual in a vehicle. The LEOs fired 21 rounds at the bad dude with 9mm Glocks from ranges of 25 to 40 feet. All 21 rounds struck the car (from front fender to rear door). None struck the bad guy!
I am very greatful that the three officers did not have full auto weapons.
In Vietnam I used full auto only to break contact. All other times return fire was semi auto. I have yet to read a LE after action report (incident report) from anywhere that supported the need of full auto weapons in LE!
I am not advocating fully automatic weapons for all law enforcement officers. I am stating that there is a need for SWAT. SWAT trains on a regular basis, unlike other members of the agency.
Your example of LEOs firing 21 rounds and not striking an individual in a vehicle is demonstrative to your argument against all officers having fully automatic weapons, but it also illustrates that it does not have to be fully automatic weapons to create an appearrance of spray and pray. I might also add that LE " hits on targets ratio" would be similar to a military engagement.
Are the opponents of automatic weapons in the hands of LE, that there would be no instance where an automatic weapon would be the weapon of choice?
NousDefionsDoc
06-26-2006, 17:13
Hmmmmmm........ And I respectfully counter with some facts:
1. I can think of no "collateral" damage as a result of LE using automatic weapons. ( Common debate point I've read here).
2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.
3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.
4. LE has evolved, like the military. The Newhall incident in the 70's changed the way we carried our reload ammo, and the way we practiced on the range. Dump pouches to Speed loaders. Dump the spent rounds as opposed to being concerned about "policiing" them up later. We switched to semi-autos from revolvers due to other incidents. We started carrying rifles as opposed to shotguns. In each of those evolutions, training was supplied to insure the transition worked. Incidents are used to improve LE, not as a means to "justify".
But you agree that the incident to which I refer was not caused by being out-gunned?
Smokin Joe
06-26-2006, 17:29
But you agree that the incident to which I refer was not caused by being out-gunned?
I would say poor tactics, lack of intel, and the Officers not preparing for the absolute worse case scenario.
Just .02 cents.
NousDefionsDoc
06-26-2006, 17:38
I would say poor tactics, lack of intel, and the Officers not preparing for the absolute worse case scenario.
Just .02 cents.
Tactics - from what I saw, they took the corner then gave it back. Bad move. I take it, that's MY CORNER. Plus they gave up their cover.
NousDefionsDoc
06-26-2006, 18:01
This discussion has brought up some excellent points.
I do however have a difficult time giving any credit towards the Police Shotgun loaded with buckshot. Basically for the same reasons stated here with "full-auto" fire. We all know what happens when you fire a 00buck round at distances farther than 15-20 yards, VangComp Mods excluded. As LEO's we are mandated by P&P to account for everything that comes out of a barrel. Distances stated above spread the shot out so far in some cases as to making a "hit" with any of the shot a 50/50 chance.
An example would be, if I were to fire that shotgun on a slight angle say from the prone, up towards a subject, at distances greater than 15 yards. Will say for practical purposes that the BG is firing a full-auto weapon and attacking you as you arrive on scene. Allot of buckshot is going to go where I don't want it and people are going to be in danger of a incapacitating/lethal hit(s) in an urban enviroment. Other than for "special" situations (ie., SWAT), loading the shotgun with the first round as a slug may be a better choice. I am betting that unless the LEO has recieved some intense training or past experience with being shot at, that first round is going to miss. Anybody else agree?
What if during the North Hollywood shootout offciers did arrive with full auto weapons and when the BG's were standing in front of the part of the bank that had no windows or doors that from a rest, full auto fire wouldn't have either made them pause and/or obtain hits with their backstop being marble or cement?
Interesting. I'm not a shotgun guy - they are Master Keys to me. Every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages, so what you say makes sense to me.
I haven't seen anyone say officers shouldn't have a patrol rifle. And I don't see how N. Hollywood would have been better off with auto as opposed to well aimed shots. Of course I don't know much about it, I only saw the papers and part of a movie about it.
I agree with what you say about accounting for rounds.
STR8SHTR
06-26-2006, 19:07
I am not advocating fully automatic weapons for all law enforcement officers. I am stating that there is a need for SWAT. SWAT trains on a regular basis, unlike other members of the agency.
Depends on the agency. I know of a local so called SWAT team. They do not train as often as they should. You can't even get them together quarterly much less often enough to train them to be proficent enough to handle a weapon capable of full auto fire. They do not need automatic rifles and they have them. Hell some of them don't even need to carry a pistol.
If you can get the training and justify the need then go for it. Most departments do not have the budget to properly train officers in the proper use of a full auto type rifle and maintain the officer proficiency in it's use and deployment. As stated by others it takes alot of training and bonding to be capable of handling that type of rifle in a LE role.
I have been in law enforcement for over 18 years. I cannot remember one incident that couldn't be handled with a semi auto rifle.
Gene Econ
06-26-2006, 19:32
[QUOTE=Gene Econ] Gene, What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete? TS
TS:
Well, I will shoot a couple of different M-4s and A-2s off of ground that is composed of rock and compressed dirt that has been baked in the sun for the last week. Hard as concrete in an instant. Will do this tomorrow.
Gene
Gene Econ
06-26-2006, 21:12
[QUOTE=Smokin Joe][QUOTE=Team Sergeant]
Oooh Ooooh I know I know...
Smokin Joe:
Not being a wise guy here but have you tried this? Although I know of no one who has taken a firing position in the middle of a concrete or asphalt street, I will shoot some using the magazine as a rest off of a ground that is hard as concrete just to see what will happen. I figure it will probably hurt the magazine and the accuracy will suck but I bet it will spit out a bullet every time the trigger is pulled. Being somewhat smart, I will lay on a mat but will have the magazine right down on the ground and use it as a monopod.
I am not at Camp Perry or Quantico. I am on Fort Lewis. Fort Lewis ground consists of river rock with enough soil to fill in the gaps between the rocks. It has also been dry and hot for the last week or two and the rock / dirt ground is hard as concrete. You can drive a Stryker across our firing areas and leave no tire tracks. Leave a lot of dust but no tracks. Sucks taking a knee for a magazine change and the prone isn't real comfortable either. Our guys would rather work off of a slab of concrete right now. Easier on the knees than river rock and concrete hard dirt.
Please -- no offense intended. I bet the carbines and rifles will function even if I can't shoot the balls off of a gnat at 100 yards.
Well, I will find out tomorrow and what ever happens, I will state my results factually and without emotion.
I do not get involved with LEA conditions or standards of conduct. They are correct for American civil law and standards of conduct. This doesn't imply that they are right or even ethical. I will stick with Joe for the next couple of months and then deal with other things in my life. My guys and I train Joe to be situationally aware, ID a threat, and kill the threat while seeing about three steps ahead of their situation. We train Joe on ethical standards of conduct as that is a responsibility that can not be ignored. Few would recognize how we train Joe on these ethical standards because they are handed down using the language that Infantrymen use but they are honest and correct.
One thing we do that LEA doesn't is to train our guys to accept risk and to have the confidence to dominate their battlefield. Civilians get killed in combat. Our guys don't like it when an innocent gets killed. However, unlike the LEA, we have to ensure our guys can handle it and go out the next day and have the same confidence in themselves, their leaders, unit, equipment, God, and Lord Knows who or what else -- to do the job over and over again.
I do not get involved in LEA discussions as their world is as different from the combat arms as me shoting an NMC is different from a fellow shooting in a firefight.
Gene
Smokin Joe
06-26-2006, 22:05
Gene Econ
I wasn't trying to be a wise guy, I was just thinking about the accuracy factor of a magazine supported rifle being fired off of a hard surface.
Gene Econ
06-27-2006, 18:37
Gene Econ I wasn't trying to be a wise guy, I was just thinking about the accuracy factor of a magazine supported rifle being fired off of a hard surface.
Joe and TS:
OK -- today I fired sixty rounds from an M-4 using two magazines. I shot on paper at 100 yards mostly in strings of five to ten. The ground is what I described earlier -- concrete like hard dirt and rocks.
The carbine is issued, the M-68 is issued, the magazines are issued, and the ammunition was issued PMJ M-855 (Green Tip). I shot on a 25 yard Standard American Pistol target placed at 100 yards.
I shot prone with the magazine jammed into the rocks and dirt as a monopod type of set up. I tried to induce a malfunction but had no malfunctions, no matter how hard I pulled back or pushed forward on the magazine.
The group size was right at 3 inches -- string after string. Very circular group but the PMJ ammo we have been shooting seems to lack those wild shots found with the Lake City M-855 so you get more of an honest assessment of accuracy with this particular PMJ ammo. I have no clue who PMJ is either.
I also shot unsupported prone to see if there was a zero shift. There was but it was the shift that would bother a High Power shooter and in military terms was of no importance. The shift was due to my unsupported position that had much less force placed on the carbine.
I used a couple of techniques with the magazine firmly jammed into the rocks.
First was pulling the carbine into my shoulder with my non firing hand wrapped around the magazine well and magazine. This was uncomfortable and allowed too much muzzle flip. Too long for a follow on shot and it disrupted my position.
Next I put my non firing hand over the top of the forend and used downward pressure combined with rearward pressure. Was not comfortable and it took too long to get back on the target.
Next I grabbed the forend in a more traditional manner and locked it in with my body weight pushing a bit forward much like a machinegunner. This basically pushed the carbine forward on the magazine. Still didn't like the recoil management.
Finally I grasped the forend in a traditional manner and pulled it back strongly into my shoulder while exerting significant force downward on the stock with my cheek and upper body. This one used a immense amount of isometric force on the carbine. I didn't envy the magazine or magazine release. That one worked out real well and I would go with it using the magazine rest technique. The dot would rise about two inches on the target directly to 12 oclock on every shot and settle right back into the aiming area. No lateral movement what so ever. This very hard position also allowed me to work that monstrous trigger pull very consistently and smoothly. Also very quickly.
Well, I shot strings while trying these various positions and got no malfunctions and saw no zero change so I figure it is a technique. I also figure it beats the crap out of the carbine's magazine release and the magazine.
I am not willing to bet money that this technique is the heat. I will have some DMs try it out a couple of times under various conditions and by doing so will get a better statistical analysis in terms of accuracy, zero changes, malfunctions, ergonomics, etc.
And that is my report for today.
Gene
Basicload
06-27-2006, 19:08
It should be noted as stated above that this is not taught as the end all be all techinique for prone fire.
I was taught to use it when heart rate, breathing, time, or body position do not allow for a steady firing platform in unsupported/ sling supported fire. Also Shooting slow aimed fire (field zero with no sandbags).
The single engagement is also preferred as "pivoting" on the magazine can be a pain in rocks and such. Mulitples in fairly close proximity are OK though.
Gene,
Great points on weak side hand positioning,. I'm not sure that there is a right asnwer to that one. Some guys hold the magazine, some hold the forearm or pull into their shoulder with the "G-grip" if they have one. I have a front grip and I grab it and pull rearward myself(thumb forward, no choking the chicken). If I'm zeroing and don't need to worry about recoil management, I will place my hand to the rear of the SOPMOD stock and pull it into my shoulder ala long-gunning.
Its hard to beat a sling supported position with a good adjustable 2 point like a V-tac or Vickers though.
In school we color coded paint marker lines on our V-tacs for standing, Kneeling, and prone adjustment points. This significantly cut down on adjustment times when shooting 300, 200, 100 meter drills.
Great eval.
Two other Redi-mag issues that I will bring up.
1. HK and alluminmum mags are two different lengths so if you are running different kinds of magazines in your kit, your base is all jacked up and the gun tilts to one side if you try low prone.
2. HK magazines have a solid recess for the magazine catch, it is NOT a hole. I have heard stories that the recess is not deep enough and that HK magazines will fall out of the redi-mag sometimes. I have not experienced this myself, but since there are upgraded followers and springs available now, I have pretty much started going away from HK magazines to cut weight and headache.
Gene Econ
06-27-2006, 21:13
It should be noted as stated above that this is not taught as the end all be all techinique for prone fire. I was taught to use it when heart rate, breathing, time, or body position do not allow for a steady firing platform in unsupported/ sling supported fire. Also Shooting slow aimed fire (field zero with no sandbags). The single engagement is also preferred as "pivoting" on the magazine can be a pain in rocks and such. Mulitples in fairly close proximity are OK though. (cut) Two other Redi-mag issues that I will bring up. 1. HK and alluminmum mags are two different lengths so if you are running different kinds of magazines in your kit, your base is all jacked up and the gun tilts to one side if you try low prone. 2. HK magazines have a solid recess for the magazine catch, it is NOT a hole. I have heard stories that the recess is not deep enough and that HK magazines will fall out of the redi-mag sometimes. I have not experienced this myself, but since there are upgraded followers and springs available now, I have pretty much started going away from HK magazines to cut weight and headache.
BL:
The position I mentioned as liking reminded me of my rapid fire M-24 prone with a sling. Solid, unmoving, able to take recoil and retain a good sight picture. In a nutshell, just like my loop sling M-14 prone but without a sling! Very confident position.
I generally train guys for multiple engagements and saw no issues with transitioning between targets that were about 25 yards apart laterally at 100 yards. After that, even if one was in a sling, one would have to shift his body left or right. Same with a bipod. I found this position to be far more stable and to give a more consistent shot group than sand bagging or using a bipod.
Slings are another matter. I have seen too many guys have problems with magazine changes for me to believe that the tac slings of today should be emphasized. They are a convenient way of carrying a carbine with some sort of muzzle awareness and are very fast to bring to bear while standing. However they have a bad habit of interfering with a magazine change. I have seen way too many solid soldiers have to spend an extra second or two moving a magazine around that sling to get to the magazine well for me to be confident in them. I have an idea that I will screw around with once I have some time.
I think the redi mags work as advertised so have confidence in them. However, I could care less if the redi mag loaded magazine is longer or shorter than the one in the magazine well. If I were on concrete that is flat then perhaps I would care. We simply have no ranges that use concrete pads and on most of our ranges a guy can't level his rifle with a bipod due to uneven ground so the issue is neutral. Also, you can put on a pretty serious cant to a rifle and still hold an upper torso to 300. 10 or 15 degrees of cant won't keep a bullet from smoking someone to 300 if the shot is broken center.
Good discussion and solid points from all sides. Very professional IMHO.
Gene
Gene, I agree with you on slings, I am not very fond of them I don't think any of the rifles I had in the puddle had one. Just one more thing to get in the way and carry. Slings are great to carry a rifle a long distance slung over the shoulder. We never did that. I have put tactical slings on my ARs, but they just complicate the matter. IMHO, lot of this stuff is like fishing lures, they catch the fisherman not the fish. This all maybe a age thing.
I have slings on my hunting rifles, because of the walking/riding the quad and so far none of those 4 legged critters never shot at me yet.
I have some bipods, only one that I bought. I never used them. I find them too limiting, something else to carry. While somethings may look cool, carrying cool is another issue.
Only think I like the Bipod on is my 1919 Browning. That sucker is heavy.
edited to add; I played with a friends redi-mag... I don't think I am coordinated enough for one. You push the release and two Mags fall. We had guys who walked point that used duct tape to tape a mag to another. Mags were inverted to each other. So when you dropped the empty mag, you had your hand on it, rotate then reinsert. Some did this when they walked point. I don't know or remember if it was for a real purpose or just to FEEL better.
Smokin Joe
06-28-2006, 17:57
Gene Econ,
Thank you for taking the time to shoot this and giving back an honest answer I appericate it.
Team Sergeant
06-29-2006, 08:18
Joe and TS:
The group size was right at 3 inches -- string after string. Very circular group but the PMJ ammo we have been shooting seems to lack those wild shots found with the Lake City M-855 so you get more of an honest assessment of accuracy with this particular PMJ ammo. I have no clue who PMJ is either.
And that is my report for today.
Gene
Gene,
Did you shoot a group from a normal precision position as a default group?
3 MOA is not what I'd call a happy group......
TS
Gene Econ
06-29-2006, 16:42
Gene, Did you shoot a group from a normal precision position as a default group? 3 MOA is not what I'd call a happy group...... TS
TS:
No, I shot a few rounds unsupported prone to see a zero shift. There was one but not enough to make a difference unless you were shooting the NMC.
About 3 MOA is pretty much what you get from an issued M-4, using an issued M-68 sight, and the issued M-855 Green Tip so I didn't see a need for sand bagging. I had more confidence in this particular position than with bags anyway. What was uncommon was pretty well rounded shot groups. The ammo we were using is PMJ which is a company I am not familiar with but after seeing it shot by a group of riflemen and shooting some at 300 yards myself, I believe it is more consistently accurate than the Lake City 855. I am talking about issued ball here so accuracy is relative.
I will say this much about it, the position I referred to as giving me the best and most consistent hold was pretty impressive in terms of recoil control and sustaining the positon in rapid fire. Also I could really dominate that poor quality trigger found in most M-4s.
I intend on doing more work with this position at the end of this month. I will bag it for you but I got to tell you that the position I assumed using the magazine was far more solid than a sand bagged position. More akin to a good loop sling in the prone.
Gene
Basicload
06-30-2006, 11:27
Gene,
Thanks again for taking that out and "kicking the tires". Your honest impartial evaluation carries much more weight than mine since I am a new guest on the boards.
I would merely like to see people give it a try that have not been exposed to it before. If one QP can read this, learn it, and use it in support of the US policies and objectives then it was well worth your time.
Thanks.
Chuck
Gene Econ
06-30-2006, 18:17
Gene, I agree with you on slings, I am not very fond of them I don't think any of the rifles I had in the puddle had one. Just one more thing to get in the way and carry. Slings are great to carry a rifle a long distance slung over the shoulder. We never did that. I have put tactical slings on my ARs, but they just complicate the matter. IMHO, lot of this stuff is like fishing lures, they catch the fisherman not the fish. This all maybe a age thing.
I have some bipods, only one that I bought. I never used them. I find them too limiting, something else to carry. While somethings may look cool, carrying cool is another issue. Only think I like the Bipod on is my 1919 Browning. That sucker is heavy.
edited to add; I played with a friends redi-mag... I don't think I am coordinated enough for one. You push the release and two Mags fall. We had guys who walked point that used duct tape to tape a mag to another. Mags were inverted to each other. So when you dropped the empty mag, you had your hand on it, rotate then reinsert. Some did this when they walked point. I don't know or remember if it was for a real purpose or just to FEEL better.
Hollis:
Isn't an old age thing. We didn't have to wear the body armor that is worn today. It is plain hard to carry a rifle like we did while wearing the body armor that is issued today. The mag pouches are on the body armor or are carried in racks around the body armor. All this adds bulk and further reduces movement. The tac slings of today at least keep the carbine close at hand and cause less fatigue than having to carry the rifle without a sling. Also, there is so much stuff on an M-4 these days that it is heavier than our M-16A1s by several pounds.
I remember the magazines taped together deal. I could see it with the 20 round mags to a degree but of course the bottom magazine exposes the bullets to all sorts of crap. The 30 round mags -- no way.
Many things have changed over the years. Taping magazines is one of them. I can't recall seeing this technique for many years. It went by the wayside much like us training on automatic fire with the A-1's. No great loss IMHO.
Gene
Hollis:
Isn't an old age thing. We didn't have to wear the body armor that is worn today. It is plain hard to carry a rifle like we did while wearing the body armor that is issued today. The mag pouches are on the body armor or are carried in racks around the body armor. All this adds bulk and further reduces movement. The tac slings of today at least keep the carbine close at hand and cause less fatigue than having to carry the rifle without a sling. Also, there is so much stuff on an M-4 these days that it is heavier than our M-16A1s by several pounds.
I remember the magazines taped together deal. I could see it with the 20 round mags to a degree but of course the bottom magazine exposes the bullets to all sorts of crap. The 30 round mags -- no way.
Many things have changed over the years. Taping magazines is one of them. I can't recall seeing this technique for many years. It went by the wayside much like us training on automatic fire with the A-1's. No great loss IMHO.
Gene
Difting away from the topic a moment. One of the things I did to my flak jacket, was to remove all but one ceramic plates (we called flaps). Having padded shoulders was a big plus with the weight we carried.
I don't think a guy would tape his mags together and use a prone position, it was walking usage. Idea was that in a ambush you could change mags much faster as you assault your ambushers.
As for add ons, one of the old murphy's laws of combat, "Armies with the simpliest uniforms win". I know the box is not like the puddle, techniques is really different. I was a Bush Marine. Never did urban combat. Need for lights were never there. Also unlike those who stayed in combat bases and were afraid of the darkness, in the bush the darkness was our friend. My wife today claims I am half bat.
I can see why Charlie liked the darkness.
One of my thoughts is dependency. The more one had on their rifle the more dependent one gets to having it. The AR's I have today, even my M1A1 is basic. I have a Halo Sight and a scope for the AR's even had a scope for the M1A1.. just did not like it. I don't like that stuff on my pistols either. I think it is because I am very comfortable moving in darkness.
I think what is important is to know your gear, and have confidence in it. The more you have, the more to go wrong.
Funny thing is I was in Armor (Ontos) before going over seas, I have developed a Infantry mind set, I would not like to be in armor in combat.
"Select your tools wisely and use them wisely", is my thoughts. having excellent training in knowing ones equipment can not be over stated. Having competant instructors can not be overstated.
I am very impressed at SF Training. I would have like to have 1/10 th that training before I shiped out. I think most Marines would have too. Most Bush Marines learned the hard way.
The Reaper
07-01-2006, 16:56
The simple fact is that the Federal government has a large surplus of property that is regularly offered to other agencies for use.
One of the items is M-16 rifles, M-16s and M-16A1s, in my experience, which can be obtained for little or nothing by various LE agencies at the Federal, state, and local level. The military has very few semi-only AR-15s, so almost all of the rifles are full-auto capable.
Most LE organizations, being "frugal", will take the weapons, as delivered, and issue them to personnel as they see fit. Some will pull the auto sear or other auto components to limit the weapons to semi fire only. Others may choose to issue the weapons to supervisors or special units. A few will obtain training of various efficacy from the NRA or elsewhere (like the local tac team) for the officers who carry them. Most will probably just put them in their arms rooms and if policymakers are so inclined, issue them, "as is" to officers who wish to carry them in their vehicles. Many of those agencies have had everything from Thompsons to MP5 submachineguns in their armories the past.
When these weapons are misused, they are likely to be collected back up and locked away again till someone in the bureaucracy changes and wants to try and issue them again.
Simply a matter of taking free gear from the Feds.
TR
CoLawman
07-11-2006, 22:38
The need for auto-fire is practically non-existant. Very little can be accomplished with auto-fire that can't be better accomplished with well-aimed, effeciently-applied doses of single fire. As a matter of fact, we have moved away from training "double taps" or "hammers" and have heavily trained towards "controlled pairs" or controlled multiples of any number combination. Each trigger press required a sight picture, in other words. One trigger press = one critical mass impact.
So in close combat quarters ( within 7 feet) you advocate sight picture? Have you ever fired instinctively from that distance, which does not require sight picture? The same result, only quicker.
With that said, auto-fire is not necessarily spray and pray fire. Within very strict parameters, auto-fire can be accurately applied. For example, within 10 meters range, and from a stationary position, I can consistently place a 28 round magazine on an 8 1/2 x 12 inch piece of paper. I can visualize my aimpoint's red dot on the paper the entire time. But, before anyone is confused by that statement and feels the need to ask...I/we have no plan for employing auto-fire in ANY actual call-out. Refer to the above paragraph for my/our philosophy.
I'm confused....you have no plans to use automatic fire, yet you practice for the occassion you might use it. Seems to me that you are not very committed to your premise that the "need is practically non-existent." Even in that statement you seem to be leaving some wiggle room.
As for the "bag guys have auto weapons...police should have auto weapons" argument. I don't buy it for a second.
Hmmmmmmmmm.
I do believe that quite a few police departments need to acquire more effective/appropriate arms to combat that and other eventualities, but none of that has to do with the ability to deploy auto-fire.[/QUOTE]
Since you do not believe that LEO should have automatic weapons to deal with badguys with automatic weapons.........what exactly would be effective and appropriate arms to combat that? You state that there is quite a few departments that need to acquire these, but you didn't share with us what "arms" these would be.:munchin
Most Bush Marines learned the hard way.
I think that we still all pretty much learn the hard way. Semps...
Great post by the way. I think alot of this comes down to the fact that you can have the best gear, weapon and training but if you don't have the mind to do what needs to be done when it needs to be done then its all worthless.
A determined and mentally prepared individual with a pointed stick will beat a man with the latest gear and the greatest weapon who doen't have the "hardware" to use it proporly". IMHO that mindset is only reinforced by training, not aquired through it.
Endorphin Rush
07-12-2006, 22:19
CoLawman:
Yes, I have fired from 7 feet both with and without sights and, while shooting without sights is slightly quicker, I have found that the results are NOT the same. ...yes, all rounds fired struck center mass, but not all struck critical mass areas. We must remember that the destruction of only a few certain anatomical structures will come close to assuring our success in rapidly defeating motivated threats.
As for my stand on automatic weapons in Law Enforcement, I certainly don't feel that they should be forbidden. However, my philosophy remains the same as stated previously...very little can be accomplished with auto-fire that can't be better accomplished with well-aimed, effeciently-applied doses of single fire.
You said:
Since you do not believe that LEO should have automatic weapons to deal with badguys with automatic weapons.........what exactly would be effective and appropriate arms to combat that? You state that there is quite a few departments that need to acquire these, but you didn't share with us what "arms" these would be.
My answer:
At a minimum, a shoulder fired weapon, outfitted with the appropriate optics, that will allow us to accurately engage targets out to at least 100 meters and dependably fire an appropriate projectile that is capable of defeating both soft armor and, if possible, hard plates. There are quite a few options out there, the choice is yours. I've seen too many departments, even today, that equip their officers with only one pistol and one shotgun.
And finally, I did not state that LEO's should not have auto-weapons. I stated that I don't buy the argument that we should have them just because bad guys have them. This is because of the misconception by some that simply returning auto fire at bad guys puts us on equal footing with them. We must remember that when we, as Law Enforcement, press triggers, it is because someone needs to be dead right now. Our goal should not be simply shooting at them, or even just shooting them, it should be placing rounds in those certain anatomical structures that will end their reign of violence IMMEDIATELY.
We, as Law Enforcement, must ensure that we don't put rounds into anyone who is not a threat and who does not need to die. There is no room for collateral loss of life. Now, shit does happen and there is no way that we can always guarantee this even when we place rounds with surgical precision, but it should never happen because of carelessness or negligence on our part. Situational awareness and target discrimination are a huge part of what we do.
I completely agree that leo's have no need for full-auto fire. in most cases discussed the initial officers on scene would not have had rifles with them, but would definitely been involved in the situation....IE.. the north hollywood shootout. As an officer in a major city I do not want anyone, incuding SWAT, using full-auto when I may be down range. I say this because leo's do not get enough training on the handguns they carry everyday (accuracy statistics from officer involved shootings back this point up.) and I can almost guarantee that they will not get enough training in full-auto fire before they are put on the street with it.
[QUOTE]A LA LEO once told me a Patrol officer was more a roving secretary than anything else. [QUOTE]
Please ask this officer who is the first on scene when whatever "specialty unit" he is assigned to is called out. I bet its patrol.....
I appologize for not posting the quotes properly... I will learn how to do it in the future.
I have a question.
Out of all of the criminals that you LEO's on the site deal with on a daily basis how many of them actually have fully automatic weapons? My brother in-law is a Detriot cop and alot of the thugs out there pack AK's but in 8 years he' only had one that wasn't your standard semi-auto picked up at the local gun shop.
This is just an honest question, not an attempt to poke a hornets nest. I am not a cop yet so I don't know.
Smokin Joe
07-13-2006, 21:09
I have a question.
Out of all of the criminals that you LEO's on the site deal with on a daily basis how many of them actually have fully automatic weapons? My brother in-law is a Detriot cop and alot of the thugs out there pack AK's but in 8 years he' only had one that wasn't your standard semi-auto picked up at the local gun shop.
This is just an honest question, not an attempt to poke a hornets nest. I am not a cop yet so I don't know.
As with anything in Law Enforcement it will strongly depend on where you work. I have seen a few illegal full auto's where I work, but none of them were my cases.
I guess it would depend a lot on the area where you work. Do you think that full auto weapons would be more of a rural problem, or a city problem?
Thanks I appreciate the feedback.
Goggles Pizano
07-15-2006, 11:10
I have a question.
Out of all of the criminals that you LEO's on the site deal with on a daily basis how many of them actually have fully automatic weapons? My brother in-law is a Detriot cop and alot of the thugs out there pack AK's but in 8 years he' only had one that wasn't your standard semi-auto picked up at the local gun shop.
This is just an honest question, not an attempt to poke a hornets nest. I am not a cop yet so I don't know.
Tubbs I have been on enough raids to have collected numerous full auto weapons (SKS, AK's, MAC 10's, even an MP40!). It is shocking really. Our department has been lucky that the animals are training their sights on each other at present. That could change at any time though as any LEO knows. Do I advocate full auto to every officer? Good question. As my department outfits us with a SW40 and Remington 870 short barrel (slugs and buck) we rarely see gunplay that would warrant each officer needing full auto. I do advocate upgrading to an AR15 as has been discussed. Reaching out beyond 200 yards in an urban enviornment is rare but is a necessary tool. Moreover the majority of response to "shots fired" calls is the patrol division which is akin to sending in the infantry. That being the case you must take into account the stupidity factor and training (or lack of/serious approach to it). How long would it take before one idiot, just one, pulls his weapon and sprays a city block causing mass civilian casualties before a city/county/state government went into full press implode and crucifiction mode? I say the chance of that happening is greater versus the chance one, or many officers finding themselves in a full auto firefight.
Long guns, yeah we need them. Full auto? If guys are trained for it (SWAT, TAC, etc), and qualify with it ad naseum sure. Standard issue is not worth the headache or the future lawsuit. At least not in an urban enviornment IMHO.
CoLawman
07-15-2006, 12:57
Tubbs I have been on enough raids to have collected numerous full auto weapons (SKS, AK's, MAC 10's, even an MP40!). It is shocking really. Our department has been lucky that the animals are training their sights on each other at present. That could change at any time though as any LEO knows. Do I advocate full auto to every officer? Good question. As my department outfits us with a SW40 and Remington 870 short barrel (slugs and buck) we rarely see gunplay that would warrant each officer needing full auto. I do advocate upgrading to an AR15 as has been discussed. Reaching out beyond 200 yards in an urban enviornment is rare but is a necessary tool. Moreover the majority of response to "shots fired" calls is the patrol division which is akin to sending in the infantry. That being the case you must take into account the stupidity factor and training (or lack of/serious approach to it). How long would it take before one idiot, just one, pulls his weapon and sprays a city block causing mass civilian casualties before a city/county/state government went into full press implode and crucifiction mode? I say the chance of that happening is greater versus the chance one, or many officers finding themselves in a full auto firefight.
Long guns, yeah we need them. Full auto? If guys are trained for it (SWAT, TAC, etc), and qualify with it ad naseum sure. Standard issue is not worth the headache or the future lawsuit. At least not in an urban enviornment IMHO.
Bullseye! I should have called on you earlier to express my thoughts and opinions!
Smokin Joe
07-15-2006, 13:48
Bullseye! I should have called on you earlier to express my thoughts and opinions!
Ditto!
My cousin, a cop in West Sacramento, sent me a link to a video about a high speed pursuit involving a high powered rifle/carbine. I haven't been reading this thread for about a week now, so if it has already been brought up, my apologies. Regardless, in one of the last frames of the video, you see an LEO slinging an AR-15/M-16. FWIW.
Books.
http://xpstream.winisp.net/marcbarton/timgree
Smokin Joe
07-24-2006, 13:17
Trooper Greene did a hell of a job in that pursuit.
Had he trained with TS I think he could have ended the fight a little sooner.
None the less I have a lot of respect for him sticking with the fight, especially when he get's the shit end of the stick throughout most of it.
My question is what situations does civilian Law enforcement think its necessary to employ full automatic fire?
Only in a special teams capacity. Looking at this we have to consider the overall weapons training program. For us we run weapons on safe until you are on target and have decided to shoot. With this in mind some weapons systems are not conducive to this, I.E. the MP5 or the M16/ M4. To instantly go from “safe” to “full auto” is not always possible due to the design of the selector switch. For gun fighting what this equates to is I can put five rounds into a threat from “safe” to “semi” faster than I can from “safe” to “full auto” due to the awkwardness of the selector manipulation. That said the question remains, “is it necessary to employ full automatic fire”? My answer is yes. For anything outside of CBQ the ability to control the weapon is full auto is an issue. The greater the engagement distances the less likely your hit probability with full auto. But, at close distance you need to hit faster than the bad guy is hitting you. At room clearing distance he will most likely hit you. So, while you feel chunks of meat being blown out of your ass and you see his shirt “poofing” with each shot you put into him yet he is not dropping you will have what alcoholics refer to as “a moment of clarity”. You can’t make that fucking gun shoot fast enough!
From someone who is talking to you today because a couple of years ago he put an asshole down with full auto I say, yes it’s necessary.
Team Sergeant
07-30-2006, 23:38
For us we run weapons on safe until you are on target and have decided to shoot.
I've carried the M-16,A-1,A-2 onto the M-4. We always carried them on safe, always. I've never heard of Special Forces or anyone else in the military that carried "off" safe.
So what you're telling me that a few rounds missed is OK in a close quarters encounter?
That police departments will stand behind all those that employ full auto rifle fire even though the US Military has removed that option from all units except Special Forces?
And we only employ full auto under one condition and that condition is not one I would expect a US LEO to encounter in a permissive environment.
TS
I've carried the M-16,A-1,A-2 onto the M-4. We always carried them on safe, always. I've never heard of Special Forces or anyone else in the military that carried "off" safe.
Sounds like we are on the same page.
So what you're telling me that a few rounds missed is OK in a close quarters encounter?
Absolutely not what I’m saying. We are accountable for all rounds fired. With training the shooter can control the weapon. At close distances using short bursts the weapon is controllable. At distance this control diminishes. For that reason we do not employ FA for longer range shots. The shooter has to know his limits. Range time will make it clear to the shooter what those limits are
That police departments will stand behind all those that employ full auto rifle fire even though the US Military has removed that option from all units except Special Forces?
The department will stand behind the use of FA if used properly as I have described. I have to emphasize round accountability is key. Knowing the limits of your ability to control the weapon and put rounds on target is crucial. If the shooter stays within these limits they will be GTG
And we only employ full auto under one condition and that condition is not one I would expect a US LEO to encounter in a permissive environment.
Suppressive fire? We call it directed fire and it is practiced. Again control is key. SWAT guys are NOT going to spray bullets all willy nilly through out the neighborhood, but they can put rounds onto a very specific place if that is what is required to keep a shooter down or off a corner. An example would be an officer rescue with an active shooter engaging the rescue team. Officers are allowed to direct fire at the exact location the shooter is firing from even if the shooter has momentarily taken cover. Circumstances for the employment of directed fire are limited. Officers will have to show that due to the ongoing and continuing efforts of the bad guy to engage them it was necessary to keep firing at his location to keep him down in order to effect a rescue or move to breach in an HR situation.
Endorphin Rush
07-31-2006, 07:03
CoLawman:
I apologize. In reading this thread again, I failed to respond to the following statement.
I'm confused....you have no plans to use automatic fire, yet you practice for the occassion you might use it. Seems to me that you are not very committed to your premise that the "need is practically non-existent." Even in that statement you seem to be leaving some wiggle room.
I'll respond to your first sentence, first. Just because I have "practiced" it (auto-fire) does not mean that I plan to use it in a firefight. I've also practiced playing the guitar, but don't plan to play the guitar in a firefight, either. Not being a smartass, just using that example to make my point clear. :D
In response to your second two sentences: I use the term "practically" in the literal sense. Just so you know that I'm not making it up or playing word games...this is the definition of "practically" that I've always referred to when using the word:
prac·ti·cal·ly (prăk'tĭk-lē)
adv.
In a way that is practical.
For all practical purposes; virtually.
All but; nearly; almost.
USAGE NOTE Practically has as its primary sense “in a way that is practical”: We planned the room practically so we can use it as a study as well as a den. The word has an extended meaning of “for all practical purposes,” as in After the accident, the car was practically undrivable. That is, the car can still be driven; it is just no longer practical to do so. Language critics sometimes object when the notion of practicality is stripped from this word in its further extension to mean “all but, nearly,” as in He had practically finished his meal when I arrived. But this usage is widely used by reputable writers and must be considered acceptable.
Again, not being a smartass, just wanted to clarify what I was attempting to say when I initially posted those statements. :D
Stay safe!!!
The Reaper
07-31-2006, 07:07
Suppressive fire? We call it directed fire and it is practiced.
Negative.
Breaking contact drills or defensive fire against aircraft.
I hope you don't have to do either.
TR
Negative.
Breaking contact drills or defensive fire against aircraft.
I hope you don't have to do either.
TR
Gotcha.
Actually we practice and have had to use break contact drills. This occurs during the execution of a high risk search warrant. While moving to breach or in the process of breaching if the team comes under fire we will not press the assault. If the threat can be put down immediately so be it. However, this is not always the case. Shooters will shoot through walls or doors at us. The purpose of a search warrant is to secure evidence. Once the suspects shoot at you things have gone to a whole new level. We will back off, surround/ contain and call out. Gas will be introduced almost immediately. If this doesn’t achieve the desired result we can bring other tools into play. Proper training and execution of break contact drills are crucial for the safety of the team. While under fire you cannot just turn and run.
We have had to use a break contact drill on actual call outs. In the course of serving a search warrant the suspect opened fire through a window at the breachers striking one of them in the plate and dropping him. The shooter was deeper in the house (concrete block). All that could be seen was muzzle flash from his AK47 variant, glass exploding out and the window blinds moving. Directed fire was used to push him back long enough to extract the breacher and move the team off the pouch in a controlled manner. Multiple officers used controlled, directed fire to suppress the shooter as they egressed from the closed in porch. All officers that shot had a site picture of where the muzzle flash was coming from and shot at it. It was too dark inside to see the suspect himself. It was later learned the shooter was crouching down and holding the rifle over his head and just blazing away. Was it effective? While many would say no the shooter did manage to get lucky and hit one of our guys with his first shot and avoid being shot.
Team Sergeant
07-31-2006, 07:54
Sounds like we are on the same page.
Absolutely not what I’m saying. We are accountable for all rounds fired. With training the shooter can control the weapon. At close distances using short bursts the weapon is controllable. At distance this control diminishes. For that reason we do not employ FA for longer range shots. The shooter has to know his limits. Range time will make it clear to the shooter what those limits are
The department will stand behind the use of FA if used properly as I have described. I have to emphasize round accountability is key. Knowing the limits of your ability to control the weapon and put rounds on target is crucial. If the shooter stays within these limits they will be GTG
Suppressive fire? We call it directed fire and it is practiced. Again control is key. SWAT guys are NOT going to spray bullets all willy nilly through out the neighborhood, but they can put rounds onto a very specific place if that is what is required to keep a shooter down or off a corner. An example would be an officer rescue with an active shooter engaging the rescue team. Officers are allowed to direct fire at the exact location the shooter is firing from even if the shooter has momentarily taken cover. Circumstances for the employment of directed fire are limited. Officers will have to show that due to the ongoing and continuing efforts of the bad guy to engage them it was necessary to keep firing at his location to keep him down in order to effect a rescue or move to breach in an HR situation.
Ok, here's another fact, no one that shoots surgically does so using fully automatic fire. None, zero. Why do you think that is?
Unlike LEO's the US Military has an ROE that would allow such fires yet we will do not use fully automatic fire in close quarters situations, another "why do you think that is"?
I've fired within an inch or two of friendlies, an inch. I would not do so using fully automatic fire from an assault rifle or submachinegun.
Automatic fire from an assault rifle is not discriminatory in the full auto setting.
Now here's a question to you, if you feel that full auto is necessary why not use a shotgun? A burst of 5 rounds from a assault rifle is say 300 grains, one shot from a shotgun loaded with 00 buck is how many grains?;)
The Reaper told you what we use full auto fire for, it has nothing to do with close quarters situations or surgical shooting applications.
TS
The Reaper
07-31-2006, 07:57
Jim:
Understand what you are saying, but we do not execute a break against a single opponent. We would assault through that, using aimed semi-auto fire.
That drill is for breaking contact with a much larger element. And static defenses are a different story.
TR
Team Sergeant
07-31-2006, 08:02
Gotcha.
Actually we practice and have had to use break contact drills. This occurs during the execution of a high risk search warrant. While moving to breach or in the process of breaching if the team comes under fire we will not press the assault. If the threat can be put down immediately so be it.
Now you just said this in a prior post and I quote;
"Absolutely not what I’m saying. We are accountable for all rounds fired. With training the shooter can control the weapon. At close distances using short bursts the weapon is controllable. At distance this control diminishes. For that reason we do not employ FA for longer range shots. The shooter has to know his limits. Range time will make it clear to the shooter what those limits are"
How do you "account" for rounds fired through walls where one cannot see?
If an individual cannot "see" where that round is going then that round cannot be accounted for....
If an individual cannot "see" where that round is going then that round cannot be accounted for....
Agreed. We are not shooting through walls. The bad guys are. In the above scenario we could see the muzzle flash and returned fire very specifically at it.
TS, I would completely agree with you that shooting within inches of a friendly is not the place for FA. Again I will reiterate that there are limits to how much control one has over FA. Knowing those limits and operating within them is key.
The vast majority of all LE engagements is and should be semi auto. But to say there is never a time or place for it I have to respectfully disagree. My opinion is based solely on my experience as a trainer for my team and actual use of FA in gunfights.
Now here's a question to you, if you feel that full auto is necessary why not use a shotgun? A burst of 5 rounds from a assault rifle is say 300 grains, one shot from a shotgun loaded with 00 buck is how many grains?;)
TS
Excellent question. While effective at close range the spread of the pellets is not only ineffective at distance but also liability. I don’t get to choose the distances I will have to fight at. With that in mind I choose the carbine. One weapon, anytime, anywhere. Going back to what I said earlier accountability is always a factor. Not only can I not acceptably control FA at distance I cannot control the spread of the pellets. Like you said earlier "Ever been in a Super Wal-Mart?"
On a side note I’ve seen a guy take three shots of 12 pellet 00 buck to the upper chest at 7 yards before falling down. One shot incapacitation is not always the reality of gun fights.
Team Sergeant
07-31-2006, 13:19
Like you said earlier "Ever been in a Super Wal-Mart?"
LOL, I see you've been reading.... very good. I doubt you serve most high risk warrants at Super Wal-Marts but I agree with your reasoning and why I wrote what I did.
I agree with LEO's using AR's, but, I could not justify full auto in any LEO situation. Again, I'll go head to head with someone using full auto indexing from tgt to tgt and beat them with time for a beer. Well aimed fire ends gun fights everytime.;)
Again, I'll go head to head with someone using full auto indexing from tgt to tgt and beat them with time for a beer. Well aimed fire ends gun fights everytime.;)
You find yourself in NE Florida you let me know. At worst I win and get a free beer. At best I loose and learn something new that I can share with my guys making them stronger. Either way I win;)
Take care and stay safe.
Jim
The Reaper
07-31-2006, 20:25
You find yourself in NE Florida you let me know. At worst I win and get a free beer. At best I loose and learn something new that I can share with my guys making them stronger. Either way I win;)
Take care and stay safe.
Jim
Well said. Win-win for everybody.
Get your beer money ready, Jim.:munchin
TR
Kahuku Saint
08-01-2006, 00:03
Excellent thread. It's been very informative for a non-firearm type guy.
I was in New York City this past week, and I happened to notice a large number of LEOs patrolling the city with potentially full-auto weapons; it could be that they were trying to beat the heat, but they always seemed to be in groups of three as well (the beginnings of TS's training with groups of LEOs?). These were especially prevelant around the heavily populated areas: Central Park; Statue of Liberty; Columbus Circle; and a few others. To my untrained eye, these LEOs were carrying: an MP5; a shotgun; an M-4 w/optics.
Forget the weapons for a moment and the obvious implications of "spraying and praying" in an environ like Central Park, they were also wearing what looked like a modified battle rattle, i.e. body armor, k-pot, elbow and knee pads. How often do they receive training in moving through an urban enviornment with that kind of kit and weaponry? I'm pretty damn sure the lads in the Sandbox aren't all that happy wearing it so I can imagine, in New York's sweltering heat, that it isn't much more comfortable to say the least.
Obviously, if you open up in an area like Central Park there is going to be collateral damage; that damage could, however, be magnified if the LEOs involved weren't adequately trained to move with their kit and weapon. Extreme heat, fatigue, and a high stress environ could easily lead to impaired judgement increasing the amount of collateral damange while gunning for the pajamahadeen.
But this is all probably beside the point. The annual budget of the NYPD is approximately $3.3 billion; surely they could divert some of that funding into a rotational training programme? This might even be something the Feds should subsidize. IIRC, the primary function of PMCs like Blackwater and Triple Canopy is to offer training; both already have similar courses in place that could be expanded upon to accomodate such a training class that has been danced around here.
-KS
n.d.- I was just getting ready to log off, when I caught this at the end of Blackwater's "Training" page
BLACKWATER CUSTOM COURSES
In addition to our regularly scheduled courses, Blackwater also offers contract training, with training customized to your agency's mission requirements. Through contract training, your agency can hold any of our regularly offered programs or design a training program that will explicitly address your training needs within your cost and time constraints. Contract training brings the same expert instructors who teach Blackwater's tuition-based courses to your agency. The flexibility that contract training affords your agency can also be an integral part of your risk management plan.
Agencies and associations of all sizes have found out for themselves the benefits of Blackwater's contract training opportunities. Allow us to assist you. Whether it's one-time specialized training, or long-term training requirements, contact Blackwater Sales at
252-435-1748 or e-mail David Taft at: dtaft"@"blackwaterusa.com
Gotcha.
We have had to use a break contact drill on actual call outs. In the course of serving a search warrant the suspect opened fire through a window at the breachers striking one of them in the plate and dropping him. The shooter was deeper in the house (concrete block). All that could be seen was muzzle flash from his AK47 variant, glass exploding out and the window blinds moving. Directed fire was used to push him back long enough to extract the breacher and move the team off the pouch in a controlled manner. Multiple officers used controlled, directed fire to suppress the shooter as they egressed from the closed in porch. All officers that shot had a site picture of where the muzzle flash was coming from and shot at it. It was too dark inside to see the suspect himself. It was later learned the shooter was crouching down and holding the rifle over his head and just blazing away. Was it effective? While many would say no the shooter did manage to get lucky and hit one of our guys with his first shot and avoid being shot.
My question to this is what if there was another person between you and the muzzle flash that you couldn't see. Seems pretty feesable since nobody could see the shooter and only the muzzle flash when they decided to fire. I know that if anyone on my department did this they would definitely be in trouble and no longer a "swat guy."
Also challenging the Team Sergeant's shooting isn't a very wise idea..... It WILL prove to be very embarassing.
Dfirsty,
Unless it was the invisible man :)….Anyone between the muzzle flash and the shooter would have been silhouetted. I know what I saw and was sure of what I was shooting at. So were the other four officers who shot as well. So let me ask you. What would you have done to get the bad guy to stop shooting so you could advance to recover your downed officer? Would you have just moved into the hail of bullets? Or maybe ran away? What is your protocol on your SWAT team since you clearly have a better solution? My team’s tactics and techniques are the end result of decades of successful resolution to thousands of time sensitive critical incidents. However, we are always searching for a “better way”. As I am here to learn, if you have something productive to add I am all ears. If not…
Like all officer involved shootings this one was critiqued ad nauseam by the agency and found to be in compliance with state law and agency policy.
edited to add: Dfirsty, feel free to contact me offline since you feel I am unqualified to hold the position I currently and humbly do.
.
Most L.E. are not qualified to use full auto and do not have the background to even make the correct decission of which weapons system to buy. Holiwood is their primary instructors. We are setting up a course at Rattlesnake Ridge to address this issue. The 2 day course will cover the operation of most of the types of full auto systems out there for the purpose of educating the community. A non tactical course based on basic firearms skills. This will be a mini foriegn weapons course covering. MP5, UZIs, STENs, AKs, Grease Gun, Thompson, numerous M16 varients in 9mm, 40, 5.56, 6.8 etc.
We will deffinately let prior military in who just want the training as well as contractors going overseas. Haven't made the decission on straight civilians yet.