Automatic Assault Rifle Schools

[Smokin Joe]

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

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

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.

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 ). 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

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

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 ).

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

[TFM]

Originally Posted by x_sf_med

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.

My thoughts exactly.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Peregrino

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.)

Peregrino

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

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Endorphin Rush

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.

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

[Peregrino]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

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

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

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?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by racing_snake

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.

Originally Posted by racing_snake

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?

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Endorphin Rush

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.

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......

[Basicload]

Snake it is not semantics at all.

When discussing the subject of close quarters marksmanship (CQM), the Special Forces, Ranger, and conventional Army Advanced Urban Combat Manuals break shooting engagements into 4 types.

1. Slow aimed Fire
2. Controlled Pairs
3. Double taps
4. Hammers

Each of these has a specific meaning and are catagorized by the time between shots, the recoil manipulation envolved, reaquisition of the aiming point/sights, and the accuracy of the follow up shot.

These are engagement definitions NOT semantics.

[CoLawman]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Basicload

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.

You are absolutely right........but you left out the beginning to which I was referring. Initially suppressive fire was employed to get the badguy ducking. What occurred after he "blinked" is what you described.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Basicload

Snake it is not semantics at all.

When discussing the subject of close quarters marksmanship (CQM), the Special Forces, Ranger, and conventional Army Advanced Urban Combat Manuals break shooting engagements into 4 types.

1. Slow aimed Fire
2. Controlled Pairs
3. Double taps
4. Hammers

Each of these has a specific meaning and are catagorized by the time between shots, the recoil manipulation envolved, reaquisition of the aiming point/sights, and the accuracy of the follow up shot.

These are engagement definitions NOT semantics.

And dictated by distance and tactical situation. Excellent post.

Racing Snake,
You are out of your depth - you would probably be better served by following APL Instructions to "Hold all questions 'til the end."

There are no semantics in combat marksmanship as conducted by professionals - there are only The Eight and TTPs to get one into the most advantageous position to apply them.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Basicload

TS,

To answer your question.

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.

That’s fine you are entitled to your opinion. (I've also spent some time driving tacks with an MP-5, MP5SD and an MP5K, even received a silly hat from a COL for being silly fast with an MP-5.)

Next time you’re tack driving full auto with an MP-5 try indexing from tgt to tgt at various ranges and various distances apart.

Originally Posted by Basicload

At most distances that a SWAT team operates in, the MP-5 is very controlable.

And next time you're in a super "Wal-Mart" you may want to re-think that statement..... I would agree with you when SWAT is conducting a drug-raid on a known crack house, but making a surgical shot down a 300 meter high school hallway will separate the men from the boys....

TS

[Pete]

Originally Posted by Endorphin Rush

.....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.....

Endorphin Rush;

Of the QPs who post here I'm one of the "little dogs on the block" when it comes to CQB type shooting. That's why I mostly stay out of these threads. Never was a pistol guy but I can "deal" with open sights on an M16.

I find my 28/30 rounds into an 8 inch circle at 25 meters rapid fire semi-auto to be marginal shooting for the guys I served with.

I just never could get into burst or auto when engaging a point target. Two fast ones into the target works better than 1 and the rest someplace else.

Just my opinion but with close in work it would be a coin flip but start getting some range involved, over 25Ms to 100Ms and you'll see a big difference in hits on target.

Man, I just got to get one of them EOTec sights to play with.

OK. I yapped a bit and will let the Big Dogs bark some more.

Pete