[HOLLiS]

My thoughts is that this is learning from training experience issue and can the agencies afford it. I think with the military and LE agency training is often cut short. An example would be the burst selector, IMHO, was a short cut. It takes time to teach a person to burst. Bursting is the most effective use of full auto in most case scenarios. A bust selector cuts this training from the program.

In RVN, full auto was consider the only choice when walking point or getting over run. Semi auto + Adeline was sufficient to maintain accurate fire at a maximum rate that did not exhaust one's ammo supply too quickly. Most Marines in time would not generally use full auto. Generally at the range we fought at, sights was not used, we aimed over the barrel and watch our results. (eotec kind of does this) Sighting over allowed for a greater view of what was going on and limited tunnel vision especially with multiple targets shooting back. Most of this came with time in the bush, other words experience. Second tour Marines fought a lot different than cherries and were more effective.

The effectiveness then, I would say, came from actual experience which is nearly impossible to produce in a peace time setting. The other answer to experience, that would also enhance and speed up ones learning from actual experience would be Excellent training which seems to be cost prohibited for many agencies.


Military and LE has similar issues with training. Time and Money. The one local department that I had some close relationship with, time and money was a major handicap. A average officer starting his/her shift had over 8 hours of paper work that needed to be done. Then add the calls during the shift, their work load seem endless and they would never get caught up.

One of the state troopers I talked to was issued a M16, but it was converted back to semi auto, the full auto components were removed. As was mentioned previously legal requirements for LEO is a serious consideration in adopting new weapons, ammo, training, ROE etc.

In Oregon (3 Million people) the needs for most LE department may never approach the needs of the much larger departments in the massive metro areas elsewhere in the USA. Those larger departments may have sufficient resources to to develop ROE and officers while being to provide adequate training for the use of full auto weapons. I think the best example are the SWAT Teams. Only Oregon departments that I know that have them are the larger metro areas. Smaller agencies will borrows a larger agency SWAT is the need arises.

It seems there is more talk now of a need of a LEO that is not SWAT but has more training than a patrol office who is issued a full auto rifle. The major obstacle I see is: 1) cost of training and obtaining experience. 2) legal requirements. 3) actual cost benefit of such a position.

I think the 3rd. point is where I was leading in this discussion. Cost benefits of the new full auto augmented LEO. Can agencies afford the up keep of such a animal, the continuous training to maintain skill levels? Is there sufficient needs for this new position to pull a patrol officer from current duty or to hire a additional officer.

As A LEO I would have loved to been issued a full auto, but practically, outside of a ego boost, what real value would it have been?