Automatic Assault Rifle Schools
 

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).

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

Why does anyone not Military 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.

I have nothing against this sort of venture. It's very entertaining!;)
TS

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.

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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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

Hazard a guess...
 

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

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.

LOL :munchin

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.

I 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.

Agreed!
 

Well said!:lifter

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
 

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.

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.

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......;)