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