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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]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

[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

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

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.

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.

Gene Econ,

Thank you for taking the time to shoot this and giving back an honest answer I appericate it.

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

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

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 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

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.


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.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[/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

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.

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:
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.

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.

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!

Ditto!

Pursuit Video
 

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

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.

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.

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

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.

CoLawman:

I apologize. In reading this thread again, I failed to respond to the following statement.


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:

Again, not being a smartass, just wanted to clarify what I was attempting to say when I initially posted those statements. :D

Stay safe!!!

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.

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

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