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.

[QUOTE]
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.

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.

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.


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

Hmmmm
 

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

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:

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?

One more thought
 

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.

Great points I'm going to try and shut up now. ;)

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.

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.

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

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.

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

This is what I'm talking about;




http://www.odspec.com/AR15/AR15_redimag.html

Shirt tucked in.........
 

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

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

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:

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

This is an excellent freakin' thread.

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

[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

We used this during the Phase 2 SUT range portion.

[QUOTE=Gene Econ]
Gene,

What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete?

TS

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".

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!

[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]Oooh Ooooh I know I know...

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:

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)