LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

[jwb47]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

where were you guys with the belt fed machineguns when my truck got broke into and my pistol got stole. just kidding . It was a case of dumbass on my part . that being said I am an electrician by trade and use the best tools and instruments avalibe . one wrong move and I could die or be injured along with cow-workers so I dont see why le should be any different. I dont think a 308 semi auto is over kill , I remember back in the 60's when all the civil unrest was going on the cops were using m1 garands with ap to penetrate railroad ties used for barricades.

 

[M25BeastShooter]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I think if you asked the Philly Police officers during the MOVE shoot out they would have liked to have had precision semi autos.

Maybe the LA PD could have used a few during the Bank of America shoot out

I'm sure there are more real events that would support the employment of a rapid second, third forth shot that goes where its intended instead of relying on a .223 carbine shooter. This is especially important in the urban environment where you might be threading the shot between cars in parking lots, down alleys, past running panicked bystanders. As much as we believe that when it comes to take that critical precision shot it will be a solid hit ending the situation with whats in the chamber. Reality of gun fight after gunfight post mordem BAD GUYS DON'T ALWAYS READ THE BALLISTIC REPORTS and we all miss sometimes.

I wouldn't preach selling off 100% of the bolt guns but replace a portion as needed by attrition or replacement

In reality a .308 3/4 MOA is more precision than needed in most Police situations

Just my 2 cents as a DEA operator

 

[M25BeastShooter]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I think if you asked the Philly Police officers during the MOVE shoot out they would have liked to have had precision semi autos.

Maybe the LA PD could have used a few during the Bank of America shoot out

I'm sure there are more real events that would support the employment of a rapid second, third forth shot that goes where its intended instead of relying on a .223 carbine shooter. This is especially important in the urban environment where you might be threading the shot between cars in parking lots, down alleys, past running panicked bystanders. As much as we believe that when it comes to take that critical precision shot it will be a solid hit ending the situation with whats in the chamber. Reality of gun fight after gunfight post mordem BAD GUYS DON'T ALWAYS READ THE BALLISTIC REPORTS and we all miss sometimes.

I wouldn't preach selling off 100% of the bolt guns but replace a portion as needed by attrition or replacement

In reality a .308 3/4 MOA is more precision than needed in most Police situations

Just my 2 cents as a DEA operator

 

[sniper2ndrep]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Hey this thread is about bolt vs auto precision guns. not .223 vs. 308 assault rifles..
And thats the first time I heard a DEA agent call himself a DEA "operator". Go play make believe somwhere else.

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lindy</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The TRAINING should be changed to exercise the advantages of the gas gun.</div></div>

The training should also be modified for the differences between a bolt gun and a gas gun. And, if a team is going to have both, it may be useful to expand the training somewhat, so all the team members are equally proficient with each.

A gas gun is harder to shoot to the same precision standard as well, as most people who have transitioned from a bolt to a semi have experienced.
</div></div>
That is a very good idea. I firmly believe in cross training...especially with smaller teams. I think there are areas some folks need to excel in (i.e. snipers, breachers, shield, gas deployment, etc.) but officers being proficient across the board isn't asking the world and is very reasonable.

For the folks with LE experience, did your training standards come from your department, or from the state training commission, or a combination of both? I don't know about you, but I like to start with the state standard and then hold the department's a bit higher. However, with that being said, the higher standard must be realistic and attainable and not completely wipe out the budget.

 

[M25BeastShooter]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

For your smart ass information class BA 124 and if you are so educated about DEA "Agents" then you'll know we have MET (Mobile Enforcement Teams), FAST Teams (operating in Afghanistan with SF Teams) as well as Technical Operations Teams.

Sorry if I superimposed "Operator" into the Sacred world of LEO. I spent 15 years active duty with 6 years with or supporting Special Ops.

I'd say 12 years with the DEA doing our own warrants (we don't have SRT like the FBI)in the REAL World of Philadelphia PA gives me the right to speak and by the way I wasn't talking .308 vs .223 assault rifles.

Scoped precision .223 or .308 like a DMR(Designated Marksman Rifle). Which by the way I ran the DMR M14 upgrade project at Ft. Drum NY during my last little "fantasy" of mobilization for 2 years in support OIF. Are more of useful to the street officer/reaction team. At least it will give him the accuracy to place the shot.

 

[sniper2ndrep]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

You can call yourself whatever you want...Im just a fucking bagelmaker anyhow so if you ever drop by you can have one on me.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

My response to a similar topic a few weeks ago.

I was a SWAT sniper for a small metro police Dept. for years. I was using the R 700 platform like most everybody else in .308.
I owned several AR-10's in multiple configurations at the time, so I offerred up a suggestion that our team look into purchasing at least one semi-auto in .308 Win.
We went to several SWAT comp's per year, and even hosted one in our city every year. A part of every comp is a sniper challenge or two. Typically we had nine visiting teams from elsewhere in California. Many of the teams that showed up had BIG budgets, with some very exotic firearms, and scope / night vision systems (Oakland, Stockton, L.A.). The two most common semi's were the HK SR-9's, and Armalite AR-10's & 15's (This was the early to mid 1990's) We constantly saw malfunctions on sniper drills from the semi's. I don't know the cause of all malfunctions, but damaged magazines, pressure on protruding magazines in awkward shooting positions, ammunition, and most of all were the semi's that were equipped to accept suppressors but were not dedicated specifically to being suppressed all of the time. Also the semi's were heavy compared to my R 700 BDL. So many of the sniper drills consisted of physically exerting the shooters, running, climbing, crawling, etc. prior to shooting. The extra weight of the semi's, and the hoards of ammo/ mags they thought they had to carry really showed.
The accuracy advantage the bolt actions had beat out the semi's every time. Since we were in a small city, with no building taller than 3 story's, the majority of our sniper shots, and as we practiced, were within 150 yards, but with high angle shots, and shots through glass. The background was always a problem, more so than a rural area encountered by most Sheriff's Dept.s. The short 20" bbl, lightweight bolt guns also made it easier for our snipers to squeeze into small spaces, climb, crawl, run and set up easier than semi's (Could shoot closer to walls, and have netting draped over ejection ports without malfunctioning the weapon). I never got outshot by a semi, and never took less than 2nd place in any sniper comp with my bolt gun.
In all of the training I did, I never saw where quickly, and precisely, engaging multiple targets would be a reality. (I'll add that attempting to stop a fleeing vehicle in a safe shooting environment a semi- would be advantageous in placing several quick 175 grainers into a radiator, intake manifold, ignition electronnics, etc, however most Departments have policies prohibiting shooting at moving vehicles).
This is especially a realization when you think about how you must ensure the suspect is a threat before taking the shot. Your spotter can be doing this while you are cycling the bolt too, but after practice, and years behind the same weapon, I could cycle that bolt exceptionally quick. Military snipercraft is totally different as I am sure you would agree.
Weapons have changed dramatically in the past 15 years, accuracy and reliability have also improved in the semi auto's out there, but to this day I still feel bolt guns have the advantage over semi's for Law Enforcement, and the extra $ saved over the price of semi's could be better put to use in better optics and especially in night vision technology.
Be safe, and thank you for serving your community in a mostly unappreciated profession.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I'll add this too...
No need to reinvent the wheel. I always found that it is best to poll as many other agencies, or other fellow SWAT Sniper contacts you may have made in training, schools, comps, etc. What are they using, what's working, what is not.
... Those that have been in Officer involved shootings understand that the civil lawsuits that follow a shooting, bring up every training session, schools, equipment list, etc.. The shitbag's family who you just drilled through the eye for raping the Pope and shooting it up with patrol is just looking for deep pockets, that means the Sniper, spotter, Supervisor on duty, Admin, and Chief, and especially the City.
"Oh little Johnny was just misunderstood. He taught Sunday school once, he was a giving person, blah, blah. He had a mental disease and the officer should have shot him in the leg, blah, blah, blah."Sorry...rant off...

 

[Alaskaman11]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperCJ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Why on earth would a police unit need a 50?

Overkill anyone?</div></div>

Why would ANY civilian on the planet need a 50 or a 338 for that matter. Works both ways sport-o.

Garland PD (suburb of Dallas) has AR10's. I shot one the other day. Very nice and very accurate. Wouldnt mind lobbying our Admin for one or two. </div></div>


I'm a civilian and I need my 338, there them mean moose and bears out there!

 

[1stIDvet]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Well, why not have 10-20 LEO/SWAT snipers lined up next to each other instead of purchasing a semi auto? That way if you miss or need more rounds heading there way, you could just lean over and say "hey bill, we need another"... - just messin

I believe our LEO should be able to add a couple semi autos to there armory. Just sell off some of the bolt rifles to help fund the new rifles.

-and I hear ya WARDOG, some people are better off dead...

 

[Insayn]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

In Texas TCLEOSE stipulates how many rounds are fired in a qualification course. For the precision rifle I believe it states 20. As far as distances, targets and times that is up to the department. They also state it as an annuaul thing. If your agency wants to make it departmental policy or SOP to qual more frequently then they do. We qual every quarter.
I know some departments will have a little physical stressor induced prior to shooting a string of the qual, some don't go beyond 100, some shoot really small targets, some shoot head or hostage targets, some shoot dots and times vary everywhere.

 

[KYpatriot]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperCJ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Why on earth would a police unit need a 50?

Overkill anyone?</div></div>

Why would ANY civilian on the planet need a 50 or a 338 for that matter. Works both ways sport-o.
<span style="color: #FF0000">It does not work both ways -see below</span>
Garland PD (suburb of Dallas) has AR10's. I shot one the other day. Very nice and very accurate. Wouldnt mind lobbying our Admin for one or two.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon Lester</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A town of less than 30,000 needs high rate of fire, semi-auto precision rifles? For what? Have you had even one single crime or situation in the last 10 years that would necessitate that kind of firepower? I doubt it.

According to http://www.city-data.com/city/Pullman-Washington.html
you have 2 murders this decade, and 25 robberies. It seems to me that 3 precision bolt rifles is more than enough.

The militarization of the police force in the US is one of the biggest threats to freedom and autonomy individuals have. No need to exacerbate the problem. </div></div>



By this reasoning, I have never been robbed ,mugged or raped, so why should I reach for my 1911 to tuck in and use my CCW rights when I leave home?</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">Because while government must justify its actions to its citizens, the reverse is not true:</span> American citizens don't have to justify it, have a "reason", or anything else.
Perhaps this isnt the thread for this discussion with apologies to the OP, but it is an important discussion and eleaf isnt wrong simply for asking the question.
It is NOT a bash on law enforcement, quite the contrary, it is the reason american law enforcement have volunteered for some of the noblest responsibilities on the planet.
Dont fall into the trap of thinking that government has the same rights as a citizen. Government agencies do not have rights, period. Individual American citizens have rights. Governments have limitations, and for good reason.
When a private citizen expresses a concern that a government official is lobbying for more and more powerful weapons that will be used primarily against American citizens, that is a serious question. As a law enforcement officer, you know your own purpose, temperament, and respect for the Constitution so it is likely that it never entered your mind that a private citizen could view the weapon acquisition as potentially oppressive. Consider however that this citizen does NOT know you, and it is the duty of citizens to hold their government accountable (something the American people have mostly forgotten it seems). His fear is justified. Governments throughout history have always leaned towards gathering more and more power. Always.
Before you think I am anti-law enforcement, realize I am and have been carrying government issued weapons my whole adult life, first in the military context and now the LE one.
We must never forget that in our dealings official or not with the public that our respect for the Constitution must be paramount, even to the point of taking on more risk to ourselves as a result. It is the main reason being a law enforcement officer is a noble profession as long as it is approached that way.
So perhaps rather than jumping on eleaf or implying he hates police for asking the question, a better and more sincere response would be justify the agency need for the weapon and how the rules of engagement in its use will respect the Constitution. It is a serious question that deserves a serious response.

Dont all of us with the solemn responsibility of employing official lethal force want the public to rest assured that if it came down to it that we are the first line of defense against tyranny rather than the strong arm of it?

If not, why?

Its a rhetorical question...of course nobody has to justify themselves to me. Just wanted to give everyone the reminder that the Constitution is our first duty, not nailing the bad guy, or our own safety. As much as I enjoyed the "You shut the #$$% up, I'll protect America" poster I saw in OIF, we must in truth have the opposite attitude if we really believe in our Oaths.
Lowlight's sig line is appropriate here:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
--Frank Outlaw

 

[Falar]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Great post.

 

[Tactical]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

The lines used to be so easy. The "Operators" where SEALs, DELTA, SF and FORCE. They where 24/7/365 full time Warriors. Now you have integrated DEA and FBI/HRT guys working with them in Afghanistan and other bad places that have earned the title also.

M25Beast, dont misunderstand, Zohan, I have met him, he is pro LE but like me, and I am prior 25 years LE, we dont see most LE Officers as Operators. They are either Agents or Officers. Now as I explained above the guys operating off shore in military operator type roles are in my eyes operators also but not guys kicking doors 0800-1700 hrs. Different role. Still Heroes just different

Having embedded with military as advisor the marriage works well ( The haters can eat shit and die I am not calling myself an operator I was a LEP)

I will never understand the argument cops should not be well armed arguement. Its usually from same folks who say why didn't the cops do something to stop the guy

 

[BCP]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Lonewolf's posts are the best about all this stuff.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Tactical</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I will never understand the argumenet cops should not be well armed arguement.
</div></div>

There's well-equipped and then there's "we need fifties, robots, humvees, stingers, a vulcan cannon - now, we have no clue how to use them, but dammit we want 'em!" I think that's the kind of "mall-ninja" stuff the previous poster referenced. Buying zombipocalypse dream hardware when your cars still don't have the computers that other departments have been using since the 80's for instance.

Just make sure whatever you buy that it's what your cops NEED and not what you WANT, and that when you buy it you will know how to make good use of it. You are a public servant & people want to know that their money is being spent wisely, that's all.

 

[KG_mauserman]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Excellent post. As a member of the military I support the thin blue line, but we need to remember our first job is to defend the little remaining freedom we have left in our country even if it is at the expense of our personal safety.


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYpatriot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperCJ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


Why on earth would a police unit need a 50?

Overkill anyone?</div></div>

Why would ANY civilian on the planet need a 50 or a 338 for that matter. Works both ways sport-o.
<span style="color: #FF0000">It does not work both ways -see below</span>
Garland PD (suburb of Dallas) has AR10's. I shot one the other day. Very nice and very accurate. Wouldnt mind lobbying our Admin for one or two.</div></div> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Jon Lester</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A town of less than 30,000 needs high rate of fire, semi-auto precision rifles? For what? Have you had even one single crime or situation in the last 10 years that would necessitate that kind of firepower? I doubt it.

According to http://www.city-data.com/city/Pullman-Washington.html
you have 2 murders this decade, and 25 robberies. It seems to me that 3 precision bolt rifles is more than enough.

The militarization of the police force in the US is one of the biggest threats to freedom and autonomy individuals have. No need to exacerbate the problem. </div></div>



By this reasoning, I have never been robbed ,mugged or raped, so why should I reach for my 1911 to tuck in and use my CCW rights when I leave home?</div></div>
<span style="color: #FF0000">Because while government must justify its actions to its citizens, the reverse is not true:</span> American citizens don't have to justify it, have a "reason", or anything else.
Perhaps this isnt the thread for this discussion with apologies to the OP, but it is an important discussion and eleaf isnt wrong simply for asking the question.
It is NOT a bash on law enforcement, quite the contrary, it is the reason american law enforcement have volunteered for some of the noblest responsibilities on the planet.
Dont fall into the trap of thinking that government has the same rights as a citizen. Government agencies do not have rights, period. Individual American citizens have rights. Governments have limitations, and for good reason.
When a private citizen expresses a concern that a government official is lobbying for more and more powerful weapons that will be used primarily against American citizens, that is a serious question. As a law enforcement officer, you know your own purpose, temperament, and respect for the Constitution so it is likely that it never entered your mind that a private citizen could view the weapon acquisition as potentially oppressive. Consider however that this citizen does NOT know you, and it is the duty of citizens to hold their government accountable (something the American people have mostly forgotten it seems). His fear is justified. Governments throughout history have always leaned towards gathering more and more power. Always.
Before you think I am anti-law enforcement, realize I am and have been carrying government issued weapons my whole adult life, first in the military context and now the LE one.
We must never forget that in our dealings official or not with the public that our respect for the Constitution must be paramount, even to the point of taking on more risk to ourselves as a result. It is the main reason being a law enforcement officer is a noble profession as long as it is approached that way.
So perhaps rather than jumping on eleaf or implying he hates police for asking the question, a better and more sincere response would be justify the agency need for the weapon and how the rules of engagement in its use will respect the Constitution. It is a serious question that deserves a serious response.

Dont all of us with the solemn responsibility of employing official lethal force want the public to rest assured that if it came down to it that we are the first line of defense against tyranny rather than the strong arm of it?

If not, why?

Its a rhetorical question...of course nobody has to justify themselves to me. Just wanted to give everyone the reminder that the Constitution is our first duty, not nailing the bad guy, or our own safety. As much as I enjoyed the "You shut the #$$% up, I'll protect America" poster I saw in OIF, we must in truth have the opposite attitude if we really believe in our Oaths.
Lowlight's sig line is appropriate here:

Watch your thoughts; they become words.
Watch your words; they become actions.
Watch your actions; they become habits.
Watch your habits; they become character.
Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
--Frank Outlaw
</div></div>

 

[USACS]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

My agency has considered implementing an autoloader into the sniper kit for a sniper support weapon. The problem is that if you go to a semi-auto platform, you have to do it right and put in the effort and money to get a good system up and running. The guys on my department have no clue what they're doing and don't want to ask anyone for help. Despite what I've told them, they still have a plan to take a Korean War era Winchester M14 (we have 4 in our armory that we got from Uncle Sam), slap a rail and Leupold Vari-X III target scope on it, a be ready to rock.

My point is, as long as the agency has a realistic approach, it could be a good asset. The problem is that you have to do it right and spend the necessary money on the right rifle, whether you build it or buy it. I think there's certainly a viable use for them, though.

 

[M25BeastShooter]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Holy Crap USACS your agency has chosen one of the most armorer intensive precision systems out there! Don't get me wrong I love my M14/M1A systems. I put 100 together to go to Iraq with a NG unit when the Army wouldn't give them M24's($5,000 each)

If you're going that road May I suggest replace some "economical" upgrade vs. the high dollar items such as SAGE ind stocks.

1. replace the wood stocks with GI fiberglass $50-$100
2. get a quality 3 point scope mount, SADLAK, Smith, ect we used SADLAK because it has several improvements such as locking screws for the dovetail $210-$300
3. Bed the stocks with DEVCON steel
4. remove the front sling swivel mount a QD swivel (SADLAK is using my design we used in 2004)
5. Mount Harris bipod to this swivel
6. Get a NM trigger job 4.5lbs
7. bring the flash suppressor and gas cylinder to AMU NM specs

Sounds like a lot but these should make the difference between a 2-3 MOA rifle to a 1-1.5 MOA shooter

WE had rifles that shot 5.5" at 500 yards using LC M118LR

The Soldiers loved them. One of the Snipes from the LRSD actually made a 960 yard kill on the northern border with one of these rifles

Good luck with your project

Hope you can at later date buy a good .308 AR precision rifle easier to maintain, no bedding, easier to scope

 

[Lefty06]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

We are running bolt guns because cost. My partners rifle that was donated to his department and my setup is all self funded. Both of us do see the advantages of the semi-auto but the funds are whats stopping us.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

If you are a LEO sniper, patrolman, SWAT or whatever, be careful self-funding your primary weapon. This is why...
If that weapon is ever used in an actual shooting, you are going to lose it temporarily for a <span style="font-style: italic">loooong</span> time, if not <span style="font-style: italic">forever</span>. It is evidence in both the criminal and the resulting civil trial to follow. If the shooting resulted in a fatality, little <span style="font-style: italic">Lee Boyd Malvo</span> who justifiably got drilled through the "plum" is going to be mourned by his family until he is planted in the ground. <span style="font-style: italic">THEN</span> that worthless meat-sack is going to be worth a lot of money to the Malvo family.
If the shooting officer is convicted neither he, nor anybody else, will ever get that weapon back. If the officer is cleared of any criminal conduct, that weapon will not be released until the civil trial is completed which may take 2, 5, or 10 years.
The attorneys will get involved and hire every firearm "expert" they can find, to take your weapon apart, analyze it piece by piece, offer opinions on whether your parts were "authorized" per your Department policy. Even if the weapon and its components fall within Department guidelines, your training with the weapon will be questioned, who was the instructor on each training you attended, who was the instructor's, instructor, and their qualifications to be instructing. Questions like, modifications from the factory, modifications by you and any gunsmith, the gunsmith's qualifications, the purpose of the parts, why did you lighten your trigger from the 7 lb. factory pull to a more manageable 2.5 lbs, magazine capacity, your mounted optics, why that model optic, <span style="font-style: italic">very important here</span>, your shooters log / round count log.
It goes on and on. I have seen defense attorney's and civil litigation attorney's stand in front of jury's holding up long guns of all types. You can see the reactions on the jury members faces when displaying a bolt action rifle, and the evil black rifle with the sinister bayonet lug and 'that <span style="font-style: italic">thing on the end of the barrel, it's a silencer right</span>?' (Flash suppressor) Ignorant juries hear more <span style="font-style: italic">false</span> rumors about semi-auto's than they do a bolt rifle that looks like their brother in law's 'aught-six'.
"Tumbling bullets", how a .223 can shoot through multiple people clean through, then go through a preschool and a church. Even worse if they are loaded with 50 rounds of Dum-Dum, hollow point, or cop-killing teflon bullets.

YES, LEO's have an unpopular job. SWAT Sniper's are even less popular when they have to actually pull the trigger on "Evil little Malvo". I understand that many Departments don't think how much money they can save in the long run by having premium weapons, and <span style="font-style: italic">A LOT</span> of training with those weapons. Early on, early 1990's we had Ruger Mini 14's, A WWII era Reising .45 MG, and a vietnam era, slab side AR-15 with the three prong flash suppressor and the funky Colt 4x scope. All were total pieces of shit. On night shift I carried my personal AR-15 in the trunk which was a violation of our Dept. policy. I carried it because the Dept. had shit guns that were unreliable in a firefight and where I worked, everybody had more guns than teeth, and back-up was 10 minutes away.
Agency weapons are tools. When I was in the Army ousting dictators, I was using government issued weapons. Yes, I kept them clean but they were still just a tool to get a job done. If it jammed and I had to discard it, I would wrap it around a tree quickly and pick up another. I can do that in a split second. If I had a personal investment in that weapon, I would probably be a little hesitant to do the same disabling procedure. The same goes with magazines. I have dropped, stepped on, squashed and cannibalized hundreds of magazines that belonged to Uncle Sam. I don't drop my personal magazines on anything hard unless I have to.

My point through this rant is this, if you need to invest your own money in a reliable weapon to save your life, then you do what you have to. BUT be careful with the high-tech goodies you put into that weapon because you may never get it back if you have you actually fire it at someone.
Stay safe and may you be the last man standing.

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are a LEO sniper, patrolman, SWAT or whatever, be careful self-funding your primary weapon. This is why...
If that weapon is ever used in an actual shooting, you are going to lose it temporarily for a <span style="font-style: italic">loooong</span> time, if not <span style="font-style: italic">forever</span>. It is evidence in both the criminal and the resulting civil trial to follow. If the shooting resulted in a fatality, little <span style="font-style: italic">Lee Boyd Malvo</span> who justifiably got drilled through the "plum" is going to be mourned by his family until he is planted in the ground. <span style="font-style: italic">THEN</span> that worthless meat-sack is going to be worth a lot of money to the Malvo family.</div></div>

You bring up a great point and one I was hoping someone would hit on. The "plan" is to incorporate POF's P308 into the mix. I was curious though on whether having a custom built .308 AR versus one from the factory would be an issue, and if so, how much of one. With that said, the P308 is a newer system compared to the AR10 or L308's out there.

I know there are a handful of agencies out there that have incorporated the P308 into their sniper teams, but still just a handful.

Are we in agreement that using a rifle from the factory "per-say" is a better idea than using a custom built gun...regardless of falling within department policy?

 

[USACS]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: M25BeastShooter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Holy Crap USACS your agency has chosen one of the most armorer intensive precision systems out there! Don't get me wrong I love my M14/M1A systems. I put 100 together to go to Iraq with a NG unit when the Army wouldn't give them M24's($5,000 each)

If you're going that road May I suggest replace some "economical" upgrade vs. the high dollar items such as SAGE ind stocks.

1. replace the wood stocks with GI fiberglass $50-$100
2. get a quality 3 point scope mount, SADLAK, Smith, ect we used SADLAK because it has several improvements such as locking screws for the dovetail $210-$300
3. Bed the stocks with DEVCON steel
4. remove the front sling swivel mount a QD swivel (SADLAK is using my design we used in 2004)
5. Mount Harris bipod to this swivel
6. Get a NM trigger job 4.5lbs
7. bring the flash suppressor and gas cylinder to AMU NM specs

Sounds like a lot but these should make the difference between a 2-3 MOA rifle to a 1-1.5 MOA shooter

WE had rifles that shot 5.5" at 500 yards using LC M118LR

The Soldiers loved them. One of the Snipes from the LRSD actually made a 960 yard kill on the northern border with one of these rifles

Good luck with your project

Hope you can at later date buy a good .308 AR precision rifle easier to maintain, no bedding, easier to scope </div></div>
I'm not involved- they won't let me. I tried to explain the need to send the rifles to SEI, or at least have an experienced smith modify them, but they said NO. For some reason they think they're going to get MOA accuracy out of bone stock M14s that haven't been fired in 20 years without spending any money. We have them just sitting around in the armory collecting dust with no lubricant or protectant on the metal, and the rifles are starting to seize.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PalouseOps</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Are we in agreement that using a rifle from the factory "per-say" is a better idea than using a custom built gun...regardless of falling within department policy? </div></div>
Stick with Factory built, but if you can, get a "Custom Shop" version done by the factory with everything you need in it (like a good trigger!)
If you have to involve a manufacturer in court, they have their own attorney's and experts that can give credible testimony so the jury can understand the weapon and its configuration. Their experts have testified many, many times and they don't fall into traps that litigation / defense attorney's set up.
If you need to <span style="font-style: italic">'update'</span> your Dept. policy so you can be current on <span style="font-style: italic">'updates in technology'</span>, then try that first. I have written <span style="font-style: italic">a lot</span> of policies, and most of them started by plagerizing another Dept's policy if available.

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

"Perhaps this isnt the thread for this discussion with apologies to the OP, but it is an important discussion and eleaf isnt wrong simply for asking the question."

You are correct. This is <span style="text-decoration: underline">not</span> the thread for this discussion. Please stay on topic.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PalouseOps</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trying to get a feel on how many LE shooters out there are using a semi-auto sniper rifle versus the typical bolt gun. If so, any comments, concerns, or suggestions are appreciated. (i.e. reasoning, weapon system, <span style="color: #FF0000">liability issues, training standards</span>, etc.)
</div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">I'm sorry. Am <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">I</span></span> off topic?</span>

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Not at all. The off topic folks are the ones talking about their political/social beliefs on LE training/tactics. I appreciate your input so far.

 

[11B101ABN]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are a LEO sniper, patrolman, SWAT or whatever, be careful self-funding your primary weapon. This is why...
If that weapon is ever used in an actual shooting, you are going to lose it temporarily for a <span style="font-style: italic">loooong</span> time, if not <span style="font-style: italic">forever</span>. It is evidence in both the criminal and the resulting civil trial to follow. If the shooting resulted in a fatality, little <span style="font-style: italic">Lee Boyd Malvo</span> who justifiably got drilled through the "plum" is going to be mourned by his family until he is planted in the ground. <span style="font-style: italic">THEN</span> that worthless meat-sack is going to be worth a lot of money to the Malvo family.
If the shooting officer is convicted neither he, nor anybody else, will ever get that weapon back. If the officer is cleared of any criminal conduct, that weapon will not be released until the civil trial is completed which may take 2, 5, or 10 years.
The attorneys will get involved and hire every firearm "expert" they can find, to take your weapon apart, analyze it piece by piece, offer opinions on whether your parts were "authorized" per your Department policy. Even if the weapon and its components fall within Department guidelines, your training with the weapon will be questioned, who was the instructor on each training you attended, who was the instructor's, instructor, and their qualifications to be instructing. Questions like, modifications from the factory, modifications by you and any gunsmith, the gunsmith's qualifications, the purpose of the parts, why did you lighten your trigger from the 7 lb. factory pull to a more manageable 2.5 lbs, magazine capacity, your mounted optics, why that model optic, <span style="font-style: italic">very important here</span>, your shooters log / round count log.
It goes on and on. I have seen defense attorney's and civil litigation attorney's stand in front of jury's holding up long guns of all types. You can see the reactions on the jury members faces when displaying a bolt action rifle, and the evil black rifle with the sinister bayonet lug and 'that <span style="font-style: italic">thing on the end of the barrel, it's a silencer right</span>?' (Flash suppressor) Ignorant juries hear more <span style="font-style: italic">false</span> rumors about semi-auto's than they do a bolt rifle that looks like their brother in law's 'aught-six'.
"Tumbling bullets", how a .223 can shoot through multiple people clean through, then go through a preschool and a church. Even worse if they are loaded with 50 rounds of Dum-Dum, hollow point, or cop-killing teflon bullets.

YES, LEO's have an unpopular job. SWAT Sniper's are even less popular when they have to actually pull the trigger on "Evil little Malvo". I understand that many Departments don't think how much money they can save in the long run by having premium weapons, and <span style="font-style: italic">A LOT</span> of training with those weapons. Early on, early 1990's we had Ruger Mini 14's, A WWII era Reising .45 MG, and a vietnam era, slab side AR-15 with the three prong flash suppressor and the funky Colt 4x scope. All were total pieces of shit. On night shift I carried my personal AR-15 in the trunk which was a violation of our Dept. policy. I carried it because the Dept. had shit guns that were unreliable in a firefight and where I worked, everybody had more guns than teeth, and back-up was 10 minutes away.
Agency weapons are tools. When I was in the Army ousting dictators, I was using government issued weapons. Yes, I kept them clean but they were still just a tool to get a job done. If it jammed and I had to discard it, I would wrap it around a tree quickly and pick up another. I can do that in a split second. If I had a personal investment in that weapon, I would probably be a little hesitant to do the same disabling procedure. The same goes with magazines. I have dropped, stepped on, squashed and cannibalized hundreds of magazines that belonged to Uncle Sam. I don't drop my personal magazines on anything hard unless I have to.

My point through this rant is this, if you need to invest your own money in a reliable weapon to save your life, then you do what you have to. BUT be careful with the high-tech goodies you put into that weapon because you may never get it back if you have you actually fire it at someone.
Stay safe and may you be the last man standing.</div></div>


With respect:

I have known guys that have blasted bad guys that have recieved thier weapons promptly after being cleared.

I think some this has to do with a well placed phone call from a plugged in memeber of the command staff, and or the small and intertwined nature of the LE community down here.

Points are well taken though. Most of the officers I know do not have issuedl ong guns.

 

[SniperCJ]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Alaskaman 11</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: SniperCJ</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eleaf</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Why on earth would a police unit need a 50?

Overkill anyone?</div></div>

Why would ANY civilian on the planet need a 50 or a 338 for that matter. Works both ways sport-o.

Garland PD (suburb of Dallas) has AR10's. I shot one the other day. Very nice and very accurate. Wouldnt mind lobbying our Admin for one or two. </div></div>


I'm a civilian and I need my 338, there them mean moose and bears out there! </div></div>

Youre exempt Alaskaman. Moose are MEAN!!

 

[Phylodog]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11B101ABN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


With respect:

I have known guys that have blasted bad guys that have recieved thier weapons promptly after being cleared.

I think some this has to do with a well placed phone call from a plugged in memeber of the command staff, and or the small and intertwined nature of the LE community down here.

Points are well taken though. Most of the officers I know do not have issuedl ong guns. </div></div>

I use a personaly owned rifle at work by choice. We have rifles that I could use but mine is set up the way I want it and I prefer to be comfortable if I'm going to sit behind it for hours on end.

I did take a shot back in 2003 with a department rifle and had it back in my hands in less than two weeks. I called and bugged them about it every couple of days and asked for an explanation of why it needed to rot in the property room for years. They finally got tired of me calling and returned it.

 

[Lefty06]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I understand what can happen with my own personal gear. But in a small department sometimes you don't have the gear on hand. We still provide our own side arms. We all are aware that if we were to use them in a situation that they will be locked up in the evidence room.

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I think a bigger issue or perhaps a higher liability one is the one regarding using your own firearm on duty that you personally built versus deploying one built by the factory.

Even with a lot of department armorers out there, using a custom built and modified sniper rifle for work could raise an issue that you may be able to avoid if you were using one built by a manufacturer.

(Like what was mentioned earlier on here, let the attorneys for the manufacturer litigate their weapon system, not you!)

Anyone out there using a custom built rifle for duty use I'd love to hear your arguments on this topic. Specifically, how you convinced the powers that be to allow you to do this.

 

[Lefty06]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I couldn't agree more with you about the potential liability issues with a "my custom build" rifle.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are a LEO sniper, patrolman, SWAT or whatever, be careful self-funding your primary weapon. This is why...
If that weapon is ever used in an actual shooting, you are going to lose it temporarily for a <span style="font-style: italic">loooong</span> time, if not <span style="font-style: italic">forever</span>.</div></div>

That has not been the case here.

Usually the weapon is back in the hands of the officer in less than a couple weeks.

My rifle is a personally owned rifle. I am not too worried about it being "confiscated".

Regarding custom rifles, yes they bring another variable into the mix. However the number of custom police sniper rifles in use is not small. You do have to realize that if you have to defend one in court you won't have "Big Green", Savage, FN or other multi-million dollar companies in your corner. Your city attorney will actually have to do some work and put up his/her own argument. Then again, that's what the city pays them for. It's also why if you are a professional Sniper it pay to belong to professional organizations that can point you towards "expert witnesses" to assist your case.

The lawyers will try to argue any point they can. It doesn't matter if it's legitimate or not. Dictating tactics and equipment based on idiot antics in a courtroom is not appealing to me.

 

[Phylodog]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PalouseOps</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a bigger issue or perhaps a higher liability one is the one regarding using your own firearm on duty that you personally built versus deploying one built by the factory.

Even with a lot of department armorers out there, using a custom built and modified sniper rifle for work could raise an issue that you may be able to avoid if you were using one built by a manufacturer.

(Like what was mentioned earlier on here, let the attorneys for the manufacturer litigate their weapon system, not you!)

Anyone out there using a custom built rifle for duty use I'd love to hear your arguments on this topic. Specifically, how you convinced the powers that be to allow you to do this. </div></div>

More than half of our rifles are "custom" meaning they are not as they left the factory. They were built by military gunsmiths on a military installation. In the memo I submitted requesting authorization to use my personal rifle I simply stated that my personal rifle was very similar to the "custom" rifles in our inventory. It consisted of a modified factory Remington receiver (trued), a custom barrel, McMillan stock and a factory trigger adjusted by a professional rifle builder. It shoots sub MOA just like the department rifles and operates exactly as the department rifles do. I have extensive documentation of my rifle's consistent sub MOA performance including a cold bore/qualification course fired monthly for the past 3.5 years.

One day it may bite me in the ass but I refuse to live in fear of how an attorney might attempt to represent my actions or equipment in court. If it doesn't pass the smell test I don't do it but if it meets the objectively reasonable criteria I have no issues moving forward. It's the attorney's job to worry about the bullshit they like to create in a courtroom. If allowed to speak my mind to a jury I have no worries that I will be able to explain things in a manner which makes sense.

As I've heard stated here many times, it ain't the bow, it's the Indian. If the Dept/City attorney's can't get that point across in court then the dept/city needs to hire better attorneys. I'm far more concerned about being correct in my actions than the equipment used during those actions. If deadly force is justified it matters little the means used to accomplish it.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Phylodog</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
One day it may bite me in the ass but I refuse to live in fear of how an attorney might attempt to represent my actions or equipment in court. If it doesn't pass the smell test I don't do it but if it meets the objectively reasonable criteria I have no issues moving forward. It's the attorney's job to worry about the bullshit they like to create in a courtroom....
...If allowed to speak my mind to a jury I have no worries that I will be able to explain things in a manner which makes sense. </div></div>
The "asked and answered" bullshit the examining / cross-examining attorneys use pretty much prevents you from openly explaining anything without a competent DA to ask the right questions so your ansers can give the whole picture. It's frustrating until you learn to play the game.
Only if you are testifying as an expert may you go on and give a laymans term definition to the jury.
I realize everywhere is different, especially in different states, but it sounds like you have it easy.
One of my twin sons is accross the nation in Charlotte / Mecklinburg P.D. and the way he explains it is similar to what you are saying. However in Kalifornia, there are more attorneys per capita than the rest of the country.
Added: I hope your City attorneys are more competent than the attorney's that represent our City. I wouldn't want our City Attorney to represent me for even a parking violation. I would likely end up getting 20 years in the electric chair.

 

[WARDOG]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

First a Shout-Out to a fellow <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-family: 'Century Gothic'">Eagle</span></span></span>, 11B101ABN

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...If that weapon is ever used in an actual shooting, you are going to lose it temporarily for a <span style="font-style: italic">loooong</span> time, if not <span style="font-style: italic">forever</span>.</div></div>
That has not been the case here.
Usually the weapon is back in the hands of the officer in less than a couple weeks....</div></div>

In our rural county, the <span style="font-style: italic">involved officers</span> are not even back to work in two weeks. Regardless how obvious it is which weapon was used to shoot the bad guy, the weapon is siezed immediatley and ballistics testing is completed to ensure that the bullet / fragments were from that officers weapon.
We would have three different agencies doing investigations into the shooting, the Dept. the officer works for, the District Attorney's Office, and the State DOJ. No investigation is complete until ballistics and science data are completed so the invest's take a while to get done.
Once the dead perp's family has filed any kind of civil case, or violation of civil rights case (Federal Charges), the attorney's sieze the weapon by court order. The only way to get a firearm released under Kalifornia law is to have the same judge that signed the original siezure, to sign the release. Judges around here do not want to make any decisions about anything. So your weapon will sit until all of the criminal and civil cases are adjudicated, and all appeal deadlines have passed.

 

[East County]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Yes, that would not do at all!

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: PalouseOps</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think a bigger issue or perhaps a higher liability one is the one regarding using your own firearm on duty that you personally built versus deploying one built by the factory.

Even with a lot of department armorers out there, using a custom built and modified sniper rifle for work could raise an issue that you may be able to avoid if you were using one built by a manufacturer.

(Like what was mentioned earlier on here, let the attorneys for the manufacturer litigate their weapon system, not you!)

Anyone out there using a custom built rifle for duty use I'd love to hear your arguments on this topic...</div></div>There is no issue here. What you speaking of is a myth (although one shared by more than a few administrators who don't know any better). The legal issues involved in a shooting have nothing to do with whether or not the rifle was built or bought, or who owns it.

 

[11B101ABN]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Good deal. I haven't really heard of any nightmare issues w/ the GBI down here in regardsto returneing weapons to an agency/officer.

PS-I hope that pot striing a-hole is gone. He got my boiling w/ his BS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Phylodog</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11B101ABN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


With respect:

I have known guys that have blasted bad guys that have recieved thier weapons promptly after being cleared.

I think some this has to do with a well placed phone call from a plugged in memeber of the command staff, and or the small and intertwined nature of the LE community down here.

Points are well taken though. Most of the officers I know do not have issuedl ong guns. </div></div>

I use a personaly owned rifle at work by choice. We have rifles that I could use but mine is set up the way I want it and I prefer to be comfortable if I'm going to sit behind it for hours on end.

I did take a shot back in 2003 with a department rifle and had it back in my hands in less than two weeks. I called and bugged them about it every couple of days and asked for an explanation of why it needed to rot in the property room for years. They finally got tired of me calling and returned it.</div></div>

 

[pilotguy299]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

if deadly force is authorized and it is otherwise a good shoot, who made the instrument and what else may have been done to it is irrelevant.

it is a different matter if the shooting was an accident because of what was done to it.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However in Kalifornia, there are more attorneys per capita than the rest of the country.
Added: I hope your City attorneys are more competent than the attorney's that represent our City. I wouldn't want our City Attorney to represent me for even a parking violation. I would likely end up getting 20 years in the electric chair.

</div></div>

And the lovely thing about a "free country" is that I get to choose to never live in California. I have seen some of the case law that has come from that state and I care not to have to live under the CA version of law and due process. No offense to anyone who lives there. If it works for you, great.

 

[Phylodog]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: WARDOG</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The "asked and answered" bullshit the examining / cross-examining attorneys use pretty much prevents you from openly explaining anything without a competent DA to ask the right questions so your ansers can give the whole picture. It's frustrating until you learn to play the game.
Only if you are testifying as an expert may you go on and give a laymans term definition to the jury.
I realize everywhere is different, especially in different states, but it sounds like you have it easy.
One of my twin sons is accross the nation in Charlotte / Mecklinburg P.D. and the way he explains it is similar to what you are saying. However in Kalifornia, there are more attorneys per capita than the rest of the country.
Added: I hope your City attorneys are more competent than the attorney's that represent our City. I wouldn't want our City Attorney to represent me for even a parking violation. I would likely end up getting 20 years in the electric chair.

</div></div>

I agree that the asked/answered game can be frustrating but I have worked closely with prosecutors and given them questions to ask me on many trials. I trial where I am considered the defendant would be no different in that regard. I've always found a way to make my points in the courtroom while restricted to only providing answers to questions.

I have no doubt it is likely quite different in other parts of the country. Although I did fire a fatal shot the family of the deceased opted not to file a lawsuit against me or the department. The shoot was right as rain and there were 18 LE witnesses who provided virtually identical accounts of the events leading up to the shooting. That is likely to be an advantage the LE sniper has that the street officer probably won't on a traffic stop or domestic disturbance.

 

[Graham]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LoneWolfUSMC</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I care not to have to live under the CA version of law and due process. No offense to anyone who lives there. If it works for you, great.</div></div>And, indeed, it often only works for them. Those who live outside of the Ninth Circuit have to be careful when making any kind of legal argument based solely on California's case law.

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Hah, well at least California doesn't have Ferrier...WA is just as/if not worse.

 

[eleaf]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11B101ABN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Good deal. I haven't really heard of any nightmare issues w/ the GBI down here in regardsto returneing weapons to an agency/officer.

PS-I hope that pot striing a-hole is gone. He got my boiling w/ his BS.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Phylodog</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 11B101ABN</div><div class="ubbcode-body">


With respect:

I have known guys that have blasted bad guys that have recieved thier weapons promptly after being cleared.

I think some this has to do with a well placed phone call from a plugged in memeber of the command staff, and or the small and intertwined nature of the LE community down here.

Points are well taken though. Most of the officers I know do not have issuedl ong guns. </div></div>

I use a personaly owned rifle at work by choice. We have rifles that I could use but mine is set up the way I want it and I prefer to be comfortable if I'm going to sit behind it for hours on end.

I did take a shot back in 2003 with a department rifle and had it back in my hands in less than two weeks. I called and bugged them about it every couple of days and asked for an explanation of why it needed to rot in the property room for years. They finally got tired of me calling and returned it.</div></div> </div></div>

I'm sorry you feel that me asking legitimate questions with legit concerns about the amount of power I want LEOs wielding against American citizens is "stirring the pot".

It's that attitude, that cops know all and are the arbiters of what is and isn't appropriate in terms of the use of force, that gives people like me pause. Your attitude that I should just shut the fuck up and accept that you feel the need for 50 calibers and an armory full of precision semi-auto rifles is what makes people like me question that authority.

Only when we constantly question those who work for us and walk around with the authorization to use force can we have freedom. When we stop questioning those with authority, we're done.

(NOTE: had this smear of fromunda not specifically brought me up as some sort of trouble maker, I would gladly have stayed quiet. I have discussed this topic with the OP via PM. I'm content to be quiet, haven't made an appearance in 2 pages on this thread as I had my say, yet I'm the one stirring the pot? Fuck off dick cheese.)

 

[Phylodog]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

I have no problem with anyone questioning LE. I will admit the use of the term "high rate of fire, semi-auto precision rifles" was a bit much. If used by the media to scare people and push for gun control I'm guessing you'd take issue with it in that context.

The use of .50bmg rifles in LE is extremely limited. Perhaps so much so that it doesn't make sense to have them in a lot of places. We police the 14th largest municipality in the country and we don't have one. Should a scenario unfold (disabling aircraft landing gear or engines, stopping a large truck) where a .50 could have been used to end a situation I'm guessing we would have one shortly thereafter.

I don't see the use of semi auto rifles being an issue. I prefer to have access to weapons that will allow me to effectively deal with the unexpected. We encounter numerous bad guys armed with AK and SKS rifles every year and a very quick follow up shot could easily be the difference between saving an innocent life or losing one.

The use of any weapon in LE must be justified, period. Having and not needing is much preferred to needing and not having.

 

[pullman456]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

Again, for the third time, for those of you trying to get your sociological beliefs across on this forum, this is not the thread for that purpose. Perhaps you should start your own thread with that topic.

I'm seeking input for semi-auto sniper rifles used by LE.

 

[LoneWolfUSMC]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

The Sheepdog needs tooth and nail to keep the wolves at bay. Sometimes his bark makes the sheep nervous. The sheep would be much more comfortable if they knew the Sheepdog couldn't harm them. Unfortunately that would make him and the Sheep an easy meal for the wolves. So if both the Sheep and the Wolves would like to see the Sheepdog without tooth and nail.....what does that make you? (rhetorical question)

 

[JLM]

Re: LE Snipers Using Semi-Auto

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Zohan</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Joeman3519</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As a Special Operations Team member (entry not sniper) for Tulsa OK I can say that our snipers are pushing hard for semi-autos. They even put on a demo for the team putting a guy on a bolt vs. a guy on a LR 308 semi to show the advantages of the semi platform. The lucky bastards just got a 50 so new semis were not in the budget but I know they will be pushing for them. </div></div>

Is that the new high speed term used for SWAT/ESU now?

</div></div>

ROFL Brother!

O, cream cheese and lox on my bagels if you wouldn't mind

As an aside I'm not sure my local "ESU" guys should have anything more than a Jennings but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.