Patrol Rifle vs. Patrol Shotgun

Actually although several people have mentioned that 5.56 round suffers from "overpenetration", the 5.56 round is less likely to overpenetrate than many kinds of pistol rounds. The 5.56 round transfers more of its energy to its target and tends to lose more velocity than many pistol rounds. Only armor-piercing type rounds (like the NATO green tips) will punch clean holes through a person without stopping them (as the rangers and Delta guys in The Mog learned). I would feel completey comfortable using a heavy (68-77 grain) hollow-point round. Also a patrol rifle can provide suppresive fire capabilities (base of fire & manuver, the most basic of small unit tactics). To those naysayers who disregard this capability take good long look at those poor officers pinned down in the LA Bank shotout. Those guys would have given their left nut for a patrol rifle. As for intimidation purposes, a Colt AR-15 pointed at you is pretty damn scary, even to the layman. With greater accuracy, less recoil, more ammunition, and suppressive fire capability, the choice is clearly in favor of the patrol rifle.

The town I used to work for, utilized M4 carbines ( the semi automatic version) above the head, and Mossberg 590A1 in the trunk for less than lethal or intimidation or big hole purposes...My thought is if I felt the need of the long gun, Id rather have the range capability and the amount of ammo, versus the slug gun, and stuffing extra shells in my pockets.. ( which Ive done)

Careful dude. most pistol rounds are steppin out between 750fps to around 1350 fps. The 5.56mm/.223 Rem is so much faster at over 3000fps+, and then factor in ballistic coefficient (bc) and sectional density (sc) and your statement is much more opinion/myth than science.
:shock:

Like it or not, MOST pistol bullets are going to exhibit MUCH less potential to "overpenetrate" than 5.56mm. "Transferring" energy is not simple either. There is the old "dumping" energy theory, and the old "hydrostatic shock" theory. remember those?
:wink:

The 5.56mm "tends to lose more velocity than many pistol rounds". Yes over a much greater distance and because the initial velocity is so much greater. What are you saying exactly and in what context?
Bottom line is that the old M193 5.56 ball (55gr) right up to the heaviest .223 commercial hollow points are going to penetrate my IIIA vest at 5/10/25 and 100 yards, and MOST pistol rounds won't.
:-k

Its not the velocity, its the type and weight of the bullet. Military studies of actual shooting show that 5.56 rounds, especially the lighter, Vietnam era 55 grain rounds tended not to penetrate multiple persons. The heavier 62 grain armor-piercing, shot out of the faster 1 in 7 twist barrels, tended to overpenetrate soft targets (unarmored people) and not dump enough energy into their targets for a stop (the target knocked down). In fact the military is having so much trouble with the 62 grain AP that they issued 77 grain match ammo to the troops in afganistan and Iraq (the special ops types, anyways) so they could more effectively engage targets at longer ranges and have better chance of stopping targets.

What does all this mean to the beat cop? Well, I don't mean that shooting a perp with a 5.56 means that it won't go through him and hit some innocent person. It means that just like with your pistols you have to be aware of your background and use discretion. I just want to dispel the myth that the 5.56 is going to blast through six walls and a couple of cars to hit some innocent kid twelve blocks away. Yes a 5.56 round will penetrate your vest a 100 yards, but will it go through a brick wall and hit someone on the other side? Unlikely. Will it go through drywall? Probably, but so will .40, 9mm, .45 and .357. Careful choice of ammo (a hollow-point round) coupled with discretion of fire will make a patrol rifle just a safe as a pistol or a shotgun. The shotgun's limited range and inability to put accurate fire or suppressive fire out makes me form the opinion that the patrol rifle is infinitely superior to the shotgun. Also many small-framed or female officers find the shotgun uncomfortable to fire while the patrol rifle has very little kick.

An ideal patrol rifle would be a Colt or Bushmaster AR-15, probably with a 16inch barrel, collapsable stock, a mounted light, and a three-point sling. Options would include perhaps a magcinch, so that two magazines could be available instantly, a Aimpoint Comp M2 type sight, and perhaps a forward handgrip. Despite my fondness for the 7.62 (M-1A all the way!) or 3.06 rifle, these probably would be a poor choice as a patrol rifle. Their heavy weight, longer barrels, considerably larger recoil, less ammunition capacity, and of course, their more powerful rounds would limit them to only the most highly trained officers.

While I agree that ballistics is somewhat of a vodoo science (there is no magic round!), I think that good training coupled with a good rifle could significantly increase police officer's ability to handle dangerous scenarios. In my opinion, too much money has been wasted in "overspecialization", dumping millions into SWAT teams that are rarely employed to good effect, as the "fighting" skills of ordinary beat officers atrophy. When was the last time a SWAT team was around when you responded to an armed robbery call or you pulled an armed suspect out of a car. Most teams require about an hour to set up and by then most situations would have been resolved, with the exception of hostage scenarios. I'm not dumping on SWAT guys, they're often the mostly highly skilled and dedicated officers, but they just can't be everywhere at once. Everyone would benefit from upgunning officers. Sorry off topic I know, but once I stand on my soapbox .

Many thanks to the Moderator who deleted my last post.
What the HELL is going on here?

Whoever it was needs to own up to it because I would really be interested in the justification for deleting an on-topic and arguably technical conversation.
:thumbdow:

mpd, I do not think your post was deleted -- the topic spilled onto a third page...

-Mike

Ahhhh............
YES IT WAS! somebody wiped out the text and left only the emoticon at the bottom. Apparently somebody was afraid I might be riling a trooper or something? In any event I deleted the post (or what was left of it) SUBSEQUENT to a moderator excising the text. And that moderator knows who they are.
:FM:

Many people advocate carrying both the carbine and the shotgun. Quite frankly, I have both in my patrol car, primarily because it is outfitted with a shotgun rack in the passenger compartment. While I'd prefer my carbine if time permits, I'll make due with a slidegun if I have to bail out of the cruiser.

Our rifle program is voluntary. While most new hires come to us trained with the Remington 870, we do the carbine training in-house. Not that many of us are trained yet and we frankly have more rifles than riflemen.

Some agencies have the budget and wisdom to outfit every officer with a patrol carbine. If that is the case, I believe the necessity of keeping the shotgun in general use should be considered. I love the shotgun, but it does not do much that the carbine cannot do. While many point out that the shotgun can deliver chemical, impact, and breaching rounds, I'll point out that those are specialty rounds. I do not believe the shotgun should be eliminated from the armory, but perhaps it should be considered a specialized tool rather than the general shoulder-mounted weapon.

Every weapon an agency issues or authorizes uses training resources and time. If an agency issues the shotgun as well as the carbine, the time spent on other tactical subjects is probably going to be reduced. Most departments allot a finite amount of resources to the weapons training unit.

This does not just apply to the shotgun/carbine debate. It applies to such issues as batons, other less-lethals, and authorized pistols. Agencies should select the weapon systems best suited for their missions and not keep items in the arsenal for tradition's sake. Be safe.

In todays environment you should proabably have both. I guess the issue for me we be what caliber should the patrol rifle be?

One could argue that urban environments a 9mm or .40 S&W or .45 caliber patrol rifle that matches your sidearm caliber would be a pretty good idea. Less chance of overpenetration, rounds going blocks and blocks down streets,. and it has cross compatibility with your handgun round. The Beretta Cx4 Storm is a good example of this typye of thinking.

In rural areas where large animals and long distances might be of issue, a rifle round is a good idea.

Now that being said, situations llike the bank robbery in CA where the guys where wearing body armor and using fully automatic weapons sort of takes all bets off the table but certainly todays law enforcement officer should have the tools they need.

Hell, I'd be happy with either one in our cars... In Worcester we use harsh language as our deterrent. (not too harsh lest IA get a complaint)

Marlborough's '04 and '05 cruisers have both a Remington 11-87 Police Shotgun and a Bushmaster M-4. Marlborough's ammunition for their M-4 is good when you gotta take a suspect out in a heavy crowd. The bullet is designed to disintegrate after penetrating the body so there is no pass through and the threat of civilian casualties.

So does it "penetrate" or "no pass through" which is it dude?

So what magic round are they using?

The rem. 870 I have has composite stock and forearm, so it is relatively light. The only drawback is felt recoil is worse. I have black and blued my bicep with it. I built up my chest working out and I don't have that area anymore, the dam thing slides onto my arm. I'm glad for the recoil pad.

gotta take out a suspect in a heavy crowd?
:shock:
What planet are you from? Sounds like a keep in sight and call SWAT scenario to me. You're just plain scary.
:wl:

The department I work for has the AR-15 mounted in-cruiser up on the cage. With the variety of weapons out there being used in bank robberies, school shootings, etc... I would rather have the AR-15 at my disposal if needed. Just my preference.

It penetrates, after it penetrates it disintegrates at it travels through the body.

You are joking right. Call SWAT. Takes forever for an MSP SWAT team to get to the scene and would take just as long, if not longer to get a SWAT team from a community in the area. And I dont mean heavy crowd like the streets of NYC. I meant if you gotta shoot a guy in a populated area and the chance of having civilian casualties are high.

I would say you would not have to be concerned with patrol rifle or shot gun too much if a SWAT Unit was responding :roll: . I am sure they are well prepared with enough equipment.

Marlborough, I have to disagree with you. The situations I have been involved in with MSP Units such as STOP Team, Bomb Squad, K9, CPAC, Accident Recon, they have responded without delay and in a reasonable period of time (and many were call outs on midnights too). They were professional and from the Major of the Troop right on down to the Troopers on scene they were respectful of members of the department working the shift. Very willing to listen to concerns of everyone involved, no attitudes or stepping on toes from either side (as it should be).

What is forever in your opinion? Whether it is MSP or a Tactical Team made up of local officers, they are not like the fire department and right in town to jump out of bed, slide down the pole, and respond from a local station (exception being SP units on-duty ofcourse). Because it sounds like a long time on the scanner, does not mean it's not a reasonable time given the type of situation and amount of manpower needed.

Call NMLEC. 8)

I dont remember MSP SWAT ever getting called into Marlborough. We had a bank robber (at the time was not known whether he was armed or unarmed) in Marlborough over the summer and MPD ran around with their bullet proof vest and their rifles trying to find the guy. After further questioning it turned out the guy was unarmed. In June, SWAT was never called in when a guy was threatening to kill people in the ER and himself at Marlborough Hospital and 5% pepper in mace had minimal affect on him. He was taken down by using the mace to obstruct his vision for a brief moment.

Story about the robbery. When the guy went in and said "Give me money." The bank teller who was some dense brazilian who didnt know that he was robbing the bank said something like do you want that taken out of your checking account or savings account.

The only time I have known the MSP to be at the scene when we needed them was if they were involved before we needed them. I am not saying MSP dont respond in, what would be considered a reasonable amount of time, but by the time you realize you need them and they get there something goes wrong and it usually works out for the bad guy. One thing I have to say though, most MSP tracking dogs suck. I dont know what it is about them but everytime we have called in their dogs to track someone, we never find them and their dogs arent interested in tracking.

What hole have you been living in?? Are you even on the job in Marlborough?? Doesn't sound like it... :evil: :twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil:

No but he plays one on tv....

I believe the young lad said his daddy is on the job. Maybe he's just going for the "ride alongs"...

Ha good one... I'm willing to bet his dad would beat the crap outta him if he saw what he posted here. As I recall he did insult every single person wearing a military uniform... Someone outta find his dad and tell him to take a gander here...

In friggin Essex?!?! What are you guys gonna shoot with that stuff Clam Digger clamming during Red Tide?

Scott c: