Patrol Rifle Other than AR.

[JTShooter]

If I fully understand you, Blackdog, if th shooter is covering behind a brick wall, you will continue to fire at that wall, accepting that some innocents may be hit by either bullet or wall fragments or even ricochets.

That is a different ethos than I applied.

At this point I would hope most 'innocents' would be out of the immediate area.
Again, this isn't "spray and pray" this is AIMED rapid fire in order to keep said "bad guy" behind the wall so your partner can move to a better position to kill the "bad guy".
This is when I worry about being former military and working in LE.... I'm worried what I've been trained to do will take over and when the dust settles I will somehow be in the wrong... but this is a topic for a different thread...

[jwise]

This new discussion fits perfectly into an older thread of mine regarding acceptable practices in Active Shooter situations. I was advised it would be inappropriate to discuss said tactics in a "public forum." I disagreed.

[Blackdog F4i]

Many of us who have been former military and have been trained in military CQB have that problem.

When you get down to brass tacks the average enagement distances for law enforcement is almost contact range. Anyone with military training knows that when confronted with close range fire (close ambush) the most effective response is to assault THROUGH the enemy force. Police are/were not trained this way. We still do not train to "assault" targets. Even active shooter training has not advanced that far. I guess it's something about Police being "reactive" and not "proactive" but when the lead starts flying, that is all out the window.

The fact remains that unless you are expertly trained or REAL lucky it's going to be difficult for you to stand and calmly return fire at someone rushing you, screaming a battle cry and employing deliberate high rate of fire.

That is not to say that rushing the target is always going to be the correct course of action. Rarely to law enforcement engagements involve belt fed weapons and explosives. I know that I can take a head shot at 100 yards. Not a whole lot of "gang bangers" out there are that proficient (although some are). I think it was USMC FAST that came up with the mantra "Speed, Silence and Maximum Violence". That definitly applies in active shooter situations.

[JTShooter]

Many of us who have been former military and have been trained in military CQB have that problem.

When you get down to brass tacks the average enagement distances for law enforcement is almost contact range. Anyone with military training knows that when confronted with close range fire (close ambush) the most effective response is to assault THROUGH the enemy force. Police are/were not trained this way. We still do not train to "assault" targets. Even active shooter training has not advanced that far. I guess it's something about Police being "reactive" and not "proactive" but when the lead starts flying, that is all out the window.

The fact remains that unless you are expertly trained or REAL lucky it's going to be difficult for you to stand and calmly return fire at someone rushing you, screaming a battle cry and employing deliberate high rate of fire.

That is not to say that rushing the target is always going to be the correct course of action. Rarely to law enforcement engagements involve belt fed weapons and explosives. I know that I can take a head shot at 100 yards. Not a whole lot of "gang bangers" out there are that proficient (although some are). I think it was USMC FAST that came up with the mantra "Speed, Silence and Maximum Violence". That definitly applies in active shooter situations.

We used the old stand by "Speed, Surprise, Violence of Action."

This is a good post and I like where this thread has turned... but unfortunately we're taking away from the OP. Jwise, which thread were you refering to? Maybe we can move this discussion over there?

[SoCalSheriff]

If I fully understand you, Blackdog, if th shooter is covering behind a brick wall, you will continue to fire at that wall, accepting that some innocents may be hit by either bullet or wall fragments or even ricochets.

That is a different ethos than I applied.

Sure, the possibility exists that fragments could cause injury. But the greater risk is the BG's intact bullet finding a human target.

Sometimes the ideal option is not available. You must select the lesser of two evils.

Think about it:
You supress, there is a CHANCE a fragment MAY cause an injury.

You do nothing, innocents WILL get shot/killed by BG.

[jwise]

Jwise, which thread were you refering to? Maybe we can move this discussion over there?

The thread is entitled, "Collateral Damage," and can be found here:::

http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62317

It reached two pages before it fizzled. I'd like to continue this discussion over there if you'd join me!

[JohnV]

Back on topic (although I'll be over in the other thread too)...

.45-70 would no doubt defeat someone wearing soft body armor. I imagine it would perform similar to a slug in that it may or may not penetrate the actual kevlar, but it will pull that vest through whoever may be wearing it and the blunt force trauma to their chest cavity will most definitely stop the threat.

If you want to check out some unscientific testing of ammo by a former military/LEO, go to http://www.theboxotruth.com/. He's got some pretty neat "tests" he has set up. Interesting read. I think he tests the .45-70 somewhere before #20.

[farrellsm77]

He said also they were developing a 7.62 Nato on a AR platform for sniper assistants, or secondaries, or whatever you call them. But look at the films of Iraq and Afghanistan and see how many M 14s you see in the hands of troops. They're fine for support troops, I suppose, but create a problem in the supply loop. I don't know how long it's been since the military arsenals loaded M 14 rounds...of course they load M 60 rounds, which I suppose have to do.

The US Navy has been carrying M-14's on their surface ships for years. I used one when I was in the Navy (1998-2002), we had ammo in bandoleers in the stripper clip with the adapter to load M-14 magazines. So, I do not think ammo is going to be an issue. The M-14/ M-1A weapon is excellent for long range and situations where you need excellent stopping power.

[Nightshift va]

Dam you

Unfortunately for your argument Gene, the US military doesnt agree with you, they are fielding more and more m-14's in Iraq and Afghanistan avery day.

You jumped on that quick,hahahaha. That was gonna be my response!! The M14 definately has it's place. Excellent Weapon.

As for handgun caliber patrol rifles, I dont like the idea, just my opinion. Sure it's neat to have quick access to the same ammo as your duty ammo especially when you can interchange handgun and patrol rifle magazines but to me it defeats the whole purpose and role of the patrol rifle. You need an adequate round that will do the job that your handgun will not balistically". So "start" at .223 and go up. not keep what you have with a longer barrel. Just my 2cents

[farrellsm77]

I personally agree with a patrol rifle in at least 5.56mm. Weither you need to go bigger to a 7.62mm really depends on the area you work in. A 5.56mm is great for urban areas where overpenatraion is a bad deal. But, if you work in a rural area where large animals (not the 2 legged variety) are an issue, a 7.62mm weapon would be the choice. If I had to carry a 5.56mm weapon it would be an AR type. If I had to go bigger, either an M1A or a Conneticut firm has started making a version of the old HK G3 that looks rel promising. That is my .02 cents worth...

[JTShooter]

I agree with you, I don't see a point to having a rifle that fires the same size round as your pistol. Kinda defeats the purpose.

The way I understand it, and I may be wrong, the reason for having a "patrol rifle" is for those instances when you believe a bad guy is wearing body armor and/or you need to take an accurate shot at a greater distance then what is fesibly done with a pistol. Why would you limit your self to a 9mm or .40?

The .223 caliber 5.56mm round is ideal for patrol, IMHO, due to the variety of rounds currently found on the market... It's just a matter of finding the right round for you and what you need.

[Sleuth]

This discussion of same caliber pistol and 'rifle' brings up another point:

Have any of you been able to verify any event where an officer needed to share ammo with an officer who ran out?

[jwise]

I did it in training a few weeks ago! We were doing a two person drill, and he ran out... We didn't have the same caliber pistol, so I just gave him my pistol (I was using my rifle.) It was alright, I had another if I needed a backup!

[Blackdog F4i]

Nope, but it happens in combat.

And amazingly enough if you look at any of the really heinous police battles they begin to look a lot like combat with poorly trained participants. (i.e. North Hollywood)

[JTShooter]

I've shared ammo plenty of times... only not in LE, and hopefully never will have to again.