Automatic Assault Rifle Schools

[Team Sergeant]

[QUOTE=Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by Team Sergeant

BasicLoad, "Magazine supported low-prone."
I cannot say I've ever heard that taught anywhere by anyone. TS Where's Gene Econ?

Yo TS -- I was just practicing what I preach today -- 80 shots at 600 yards.

Some guys jam the magazine into the ground and use it as a kind of monopod. Some don't. It isn't any sort of doctrine from what I can tell.

Guys with the readi mag devices like this position from what I have observed. Makes for a stable position as you have two magazines touching the ground instead of one.

Some say that placing pressure on the magazine in this manner makes for malfunctions. I don't think so as I have seen more than a few guys use this position and haven't seen any more malfunctions with them as with guys who keep the bottom of the magazine off the ground. A 30 round magazine protrudes so much that it is almost impossible to keep the bottom of it off of the ground when shooting from the prone.

Our top shooter in a course we are running right now uses his magzine as a rest on the ground when he goes prone unsupported. Haven't seen one malfunction.

I kind of look at this issue like this. The rifle and magazine were made for combat conditions. No way both could be that sensitive to the magazine being jammed into the magazine well that any extra upward pressure would cause malfunctions. Doesn't make sense to me in terms of intended purpose of the rifle and magazine which is combat.

Gene

Gene,

What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete?

TS

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

I have seen many try to justify with incidents such as that former Marine shooting the LEOs at the convenience store. The problem is, they don't understand the problem, IMO.

Hmmmmmm........ And I respectfully counter with some facts:

1. I can think of no "collateral" damage as a result of LE using automatic weapons. ( Common debate point I've read here).

2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.

3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.

4. LE has evolved, like the military. The Newhall incident in the 70's changed the way we carried our reload ammo, and the way we practiced on the range. Dump pouches to Speed loaders. Dump the spent rounds as opposed to being concerned about "policiing" them up later. We switched to semi-autos from revolvers due to other incidents. We started carrying rifles as opposed to shotguns. In each of those evolutions, training was supplied to insure the transition worked. Incidents are used to improve LE, not as a means to "justify".

[incommin]

Two years ago three city LEO engaged an individual in a vehicle. The LEOs fired 21 rounds at the bad dude with 9mm Glocks from ranges of 25 to 40 feet. All 21 rounds struck the car (from front fender to rear door). None struck the bad guy!

I am very greatful that the three officers did not have full auto weapons.

In Vietnam I used full auto only to break contact. All other times return fire was semi auto. I have yet to read a LE after action report (incident report) from anywhere that supported the need of full auto weapons in LE!

[Smokin Joe]

[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Gene Econ

Gene,

What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete?

TS

Oooh Ooooh I know I know...

Originally Posted by CoLawman

2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.

3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.

Not necessarily true for all agencies.
We offer a 3 day Carbine course, full auto is not taught, it demo'd and then shot as a familiarization course of fire, and we have some guys in our agency who carry full-auto M16A1's with no additional training.

[Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Hmmmmmm........ And I respectfully counter with some facts:

1. I can think of no "collateral" damage as a result of LE using automatic weapons. ( Common debate point I've read here).

2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.

3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.

4. LE has evolved, like the military. The Newhall incident in the 70's changed the way we carried our reload ammo, and the way we practiced on the range. Dump pouches to Speed loaders. Dump the spent rounds as opposed to being concerned about "policiing" them up later. We switched to semi-autos from revolvers due to other incidents. We started carrying rifles as opposed to shotguns. In each of those evolutions, training was supplied to insure the transition worked. Incidents are used to improve LE, not as a means to "justify".

One big difference is that we train everyday to neutralize threats with the assault rifle, sleep with it, eat with it, take a leak with it, you get my point.

Many of the civilian schools offered are offered by other civilians and most as Smokin Joe stated are about 2-3 days in length. I don't think anyone can compare a 3 day school to 20 years carrying the same rifle.

(foot note, I'm not comparing all the military as we know they're are those that are in combat support/ combat service support status that carry the weapon but are not at the same training level as the combat arms soldiers)

[CoLawman]

Originally Posted by incommin

Two years ago three city LEO engaged an individual in a vehicle. The LEOs fired 21 rounds at the bad dude with 9mm Glocks from ranges of 25 to 40 feet. All 21 rounds struck the car (from front fender to rear door). None struck the bad guy!

I am very greatful that the three officers did not have full auto weapons.

In Vietnam I used full auto only to break contact. All other times return fire was semi auto. I have yet to read a LE after action report (incident report) from anywhere that supported the need of full auto weapons in LE!

I am not advocating fully automatic weapons for all law enforcement officers. I am stating that there is a need for SWAT. SWAT trains on a regular basis, unlike other members of the agency.

Your example of LEOs firing 21 rounds and not striking an individual in a vehicle is demonstrative to your argument against all officers having fully automatic weapons, but it also illustrates that it does not have to be fully automatic weapons to create an appearrance of spray and pray. I might also add that LE " hits on targets ratio" would be similar to a military engagement.

Are the opponents of automatic weapons in the hands of LE, that there would be no instance where an automatic weapon would be the weapon of choice?

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by CoLawman

Hmmmmmm........ And I respectfully counter with some facts:

1. I can think of no "collateral" damage as a result of LE using automatic weapons. ( Common debate point I've read here).

2. The common theme put forth in this thread is that LE are not trained in the use of automatic weapons. The facts do not support this proposition. Hell you can't even carry Mace or a baton without the requisite training and follow on training. The quality of training is a separate issue. Those individuals carrying automatic weapons receive the training and follow on training to continue their being allowed to carry the weapon.

3. Automatic weapons are in the hands of SWAT officers in most instances, not the patrol officers. It is true that most agencies are now using semi-automatic weapons as car carry, in place of, or with the shotgun.

4. LE has evolved, like the military. The Newhall incident in the 70's changed the way we carried our reload ammo, and the way we practiced on the range. Dump pouches to Speed loaders. Dump the spent rounds as opposed to being concerned about "policiing" them up later. We switched to semi-autos from revolvers due to other incidents. We started carrying rifles as opposed to shotguns. In each of those evolutions, training was supplied to insure the transition worked. Incidents are used to improve LE, not as a means to "justify".

But you agree that the incident to which I refer was not caused by being out-gunned?

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

But you agree that the incident to which I refer was not caused by being out-gunned?

I would say poor tactics, lack of intel, and the Officers not preparing for the absolute worse case scenario.

Just .02 cents.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

I would say poor tactics, lack of intel, and the Officers not preparing for the absolute worse case scenario.

Just .02 cents.

Tactics - from what I saw, they took the corner then gave it back. Bad move. I take it, that's MY CORNER. Plus they gave up their cover.

[NousDefionsDoc]

Originally Posted by MAB32

This discussion has brought up some excellent points.

I do however have a difficult time giving any credit towards the Police Shotgun loaded with buckshot. Basically for the same reasons stated here with "full-auto" fire. We all know what happens when you fire a 00buck round at distances farther than 15-20 yards, VangComp Mods excluded. As LEO's we are mandated by P&P to account for everything that comes out of a barrel. Distances stated above spread the shot out so far in some cases as to making a "hit" with any of the shot a 50/50 chance.

An example would be, if I were to fire that shotgun on a slight angle say from the prone, up towards a subject, at distances greater than 15 yards. Will say for practical purposes that the BG is firing a full-auto weapon and attacking you as you arrive on scene. Allot of buckshot is going to go where I don't want it and people are going to be in danger of a incapacitating/lethal hit(s) in an urban enviroment. Other than for "special" situations (ie., SWAT), loading the shotgun with the first round as a slug may be a better choice. I am betting that unless the LEO has recieved some intense training or past experience with being shot at, that first round is going to miss. Anybody else agree?

What if during the North Hollywood shootout offciers did arrive with full auto weapons and when the BG's were standing in front of the part of the bank that had no windows or doors that from a rest, full auto fire wouldn't have either made them pause and/or obtain hits with their backstop being marble or cement?

Interesting. I'm not a shotgun guy - they are Master Keys to me. Every weapon has its advantages and disadvantages, so what you say makes sense to me.

I haven't seen anyone say officers shouldn't have a patrol rifle. And I don't see how N. Hollywood would have been better off with auto as opposed to well aimed shots. Of course I don't know much about it, I only saw the papers and part of a movie about it.

I agree with what you say about accounting for rounds.

[STR8SHTR]

I am not advocating fully automatic weapons for all law enforcement officers. I am stating that there is a need for SWAT. SWAT trains on a regular basis, unlike other members of the agency.

Depends on the agency. I know of a local so called SWAT team. They do not train as often as they should. You can't even get them together quarterly much less often enough to train them to be proficent enough to handle a weapon capable of full auto fire. They do not need automatic rifles and they have them. Hell some of them don't even need to carry a pistol.

If you can get the training and justify the need then go for it. Most departments do not have the budget to properly train officers in the proper use of a full auto type rifle and maintain the officer proficiency in it's use and deployment. As stated by others it takes alot of training and bonding to be capable of handling that type of rifle in a LE role.

I have been in law enforcement for over 18 years. I cannot remember one incident that couldn't be handled with a semi auto rifle.

[Gene Econ]

[QUOTE=Team Sergeant]

Originally Posted by Gene Econ

Gene, What do you think will happen if the "ground" was composed of asphalt or concrete? TS

TS:

Well, I will shoot a couple of different M-4s and A-2s off of ground that is composed of rock and compressed dirt that has been baked in the sun for the last week. Hard as concrete in an instant. Will do this tomorrow.

Gene

[Gene Econ]

[QUOTE=Smokin Joe][QUOTE=Team Sergeant]

Oooh Ooooh I know I know...

Smokin Joe:

Not being a wise guy here but have you tried this? Although I know of no one who has taken a firing position in the middle of a concrete or asphalt street, I will shoot some using the magazine as a rest off of a ground that is hard as concrete just to see what will happen. I figure it will probably hurt the magazine and the accuracy will suck but I bet it will spit out a bullet every time the trigger is pulled. Being somewhat smart, I will lay on a mat but will have the magazine right down on the ground and use it as a monopod.

I am not at Camp Perry or Quantico. I am on Fort Lewis. Fort Lewis ground consists of river rock with enough soil to fill in the gaps between the rocks. It has also been dry and hot for the last week or two and the rock / dirt ground is hard as concrete. You can drive a Stryker across our firing areas and leave no tire tracks. Leave a lot of dust but no tracks. Sucks taking a knee for a magazine change and the prone isn't real comfortable either. Our guys would rather work off of a slab of concrete right now. Easier on the knees than river rock and concrete hard dirt.

Please -- no offense intended. I bet the carbines and rifles will function even if I can't shoot the balls off of a gnat at 100 yards.

Well, I will find out tomorrow and what ever happens, I will state my results factually and without emotion.

I do not get involved with LEA conditions or standards of conduct. They are correct for American civil law and standards of conduct. This doesn't imply that they are right or even ethical. I will stick with Joe for the next couple of months and then deal with other things in my life. My guys and I train Joe to be situationally aware, ID a threat, and kill the threat while seeing about three steps ahead of their situation. We train Joe on ethical standards of conduct as that is a responsibility that can not be ignored. Few would recognize how we train Joe on these ethical standards because they are handed down using the language that Infantrymen use but they are honest and correct.

One thing we do that LEA doesn't is to train our guys to accept risk and to have the confidence to dominate their battlefield. Civilians get killed in combat. Our guys don't like it when an innocent gets killed. However, unlike the LEA, we have to ensure our guys can handle it and go out the next day and have the same confidence in themselves, their leaders, unit, equipment, God, and Lord Knows who or what else -- to do the job over and over again.

I do not get involved in LEA discussions as their world is as different from the combat arms as me shoting an NMC is different from a fellow shooting in a firefight.

Gene

[Smokin Joe]

Gene Econ

I wasn't trying to be a wise guy, I was just thinking about the accuracy factor of a magazine supported rifle being fired off of a hard surface.

[Gene Econ]

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

Gene Econ I wasn't trying to be a wise guy, I was just thinking about the accuracy factor of a magazine supported rifle being fired off of a hard surface.

Joe and TS:

OK -- today I fired sixty rounds from an M-4 using two magazines. I shot on paper at 100 yards mostly in strings of five to ten. The ground is what I described earlier -- concrete like hard dirt and rocks.

The carbine is issued, the M-68 is issued, the magazines are issued, and the ammunition was issued PMJ M-855 (Green Tip). I shot on a 25 yard Standard American Pistol target placed at 100 yards.

I shot prone with the magazine jammed into the rocks and dirt as a monopod type of set up. I tried to induce a malfunction but had no malfunctions, no matter how hard I pulled back or pushed forward on the magazine.

The group size was right at 3 inches -- string after string. Very circular group but the PMJ ammo we have been shooting seems to lack those wild shots found with the Lake City M-855 so you get more of an honest assessment of accuracy with this particular PMJ ammo. I have no clue who PMJ is either.

I also shot unsupported prone to see if there was a zero shift. There was but it was the shift that would bother a High Power shooter and in military terms was of no importance. The shift was due to my unsupported position that had much less force placed on the carbine.

I used a couple of techniques with the magazine firmly jammed into the rocks.

First was pulling the carbine into my shoulder with my non firing hand wrapped around the magazine well and magazine. This was uncomfortable and allowed too much muzzle flip. Too long for a follow on shot and it disrupted my position.

Next I put my non firing hand over the top of the forend and used downward pressure combined with rearward pressure. Was not comfortable and it took too long to get back on the target.

Next I grabbed the forend in a more traditional manner and locked it in with my body weight pushing a bit forward much like a machinegunner. This basically pushed the carbine forward on the magazine. Still didn't like the recoil management.

Finally I grasped the forend in a traditional manner and pulled it back strongly into my shoulder while exerting significant force downward on the stock with my cheek and upper body. This one used a immense amount of isometric force on the carbine. I didn't envy the magazine or magazine release. That one worked out real well and I would go with it using the magazine rest technique. The dot would rise about two inches on the target directly to 12 oclock on every shot and settle right back into the aiming area. No lateral movement what so ever. This very hard position also allowed me to work that monstrous trigger pull very consistently and smoothly. Also very quickly.

Well, I shot strings while trying these various positions and got no malfunctions and saw no zero change so I figure it is a technique. I also figure it beats the crap out of the carbine's magazine release and the magazine.

I am not willing to bet money that this technique is the heat. I will have some DMs try it out a couple of times under various conditions and by doing so will get a better statistical analysis in terms of accuracy, zero changes, malfunctions, ergonomics, etc.

And that is my report for today.

Gene