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

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

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

My thoughts exactly.

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

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

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

Double Tap vs. Controlled Pair
 

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.

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......;)

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