(Other than SWAT/SOD/SRT departmentally issued rifles) Do any of your agencies allow patrolmen to qualify with & carry personally owned .308 caliber long guns (M1A, AR-10)?
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
LEO Question - Approved rifle
- Thread starter GardDog
- Start date
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
Why would any department want to turn a patrol officer loose with a 308?
But the answer to your question is: None that I have every heard of. Our department allow personally owned patrol rifles (AR15 platform) as long as it conforms to the department specs (which is basically factory AR15, 16 inch barrel, and fits into the locking rack, which precludes adding anything other than a standard handguard.)
Why would any department want to turn a patrol officer loose with a 308?
But the answer to your question is: None that I have every heard of. Our department allow personally owned patrol rifles (AR15 platform) as long as it conforms to the department specs (which is basically factory AR15, 16 inch barrel, and fits into the locking rack, which precludes adding anything other than a standard handguard.)
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I believe the US Forest Service carries M1A's, but I'd imagine there are some rural agency's out there that would want to as well. Probably, more for anti bear then personnel. Obviously, the main concern would be over penetration/backdrop issues in an urban enviroment.
My agency has the same policy as Sniper CJ's, AR platform, approved through range.
I believe the US Forest Service carries M1A's, but I'd imagine there are some rural agency's out there that would want to as well. Probably, more for anti bear then personnel. Obviously, the main concern would be over penetration/backdrop issues in an urban enviroment.
My agency has the same policy as Sniper CJ's, AR platform, approved through range.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
Nope, none that I've ever heard of. If you find one that does it will probably be a small town police department. The big city jobs for the most part won't even let their officers carry patrol rifles, let alone a personally owned one.
Nope, none that I've ever heard of. If you find one that does it will probably be a small town police department. The big city jobs for the most part won't even let their officers carry patrol rifles, let alone a personally owned one.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
The Missouri State Patrol allows its Troopers to purchase and carry their own .223s or .308. They can be bolt or semi.
SWAT Snipers can also, but have enhanced qualification requirements.
Started in 2009.
The Missouri State Patrol allows its Troopers to purchase and carry their own .223s or .308. They can be bolt or semi.
SWAT Snipers can also, but have enhanced qualification requirements.
Started in 2009.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
Good info. A couple of us with M1A's were looking to see if the hierarchy would approve qualifying with them. I wanted to see if any major departments have allowed it. New administration, new opportunity.
"Why would any department want to turn a patrol officer loose with a 308?"
Because some of us can use them effectively. Not everyone owns one, so a few guys who can prove proficiency with it, could be effective when called upon.
Good info. A couple of us with M1A's were looking to see if the hierarchy would approve qualifying with them. I wanted to see if any major departments have allowed it. New administration, new opportunity.
"Why would any department want to turn a patrol officer loose with a 308?"
Because some of us can use them effectively. Not everyone owns one, so a few guys who can prove proficiency with it, could be effective when called upon.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
Do you want all the liability? You would need to use a LE purpose round, that is commercially available.
Do you want all the liability? You would need to use a LE purpose round, that is commercially available.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I must ask: what do you mean by "Do you want all the liability?"
If the department has approved it and the officer has qualified per their regulations, I fail to see any additional liability.
Departments generally see the personally owned weapons are better cared for. We have found officers that are willing to spend their own money for a weapon will train and care for the weapon much better than one owned by the dept. As for the round, we've used Fed GMM for the last eight years.
GardDog - PM me if you would like a copy of our GO covering this.
I must ask: what do you mean by "Do you want all the liability?"
If the department has approved it and the officer has qualified per their regulations, I fail to see any additional liability.
Departments generally see the personally owned weapons are better cared for. We have found officers that are willing to spend their own money for a weapon will train and care for the weapon much better than one owned by the dept. As for the round, we've used Fed GMM for the last eight years.
GardDog - PM me if you would like a copy of our GO covering this.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I know of at least 1 department in WV that allows rifles chambered in up to 308. TAP ammo is required in both 223 and 308 rifles.
I know of at least 1 department in WV that allows rifles chambered in up to 308. TAP ammo is required in both 223 and 308 rifles.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I think for most departments it is a liability issue, whether or not an officer is qualified to use one. In court, a lawyer may ask why you have the need to carry around a weapon with such a great effective range. Those bastard lawyers will drum up any idea they can to put an officer using deadly force at the bad end of a huge lawsuit..
I think for most departments it is a liability issue, whether or not an officer is qualified to use one. In court, a lawyer may ask why you have the need to carry around a weapon with such a great effective range. Those bastard lawyers will drum up any idea they can to put an officer using deadly force at the bad end of a huge lawsuit..
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I recently requested through our Chief that he allow .308 rifles along with .223 caliber rifles for patrol carry. Our Dept. currently only allows rifles chambered in .22 caliber to be carried & used on duty by Officers.
They can be personally owned, but we all have to pass a Dept. approved qualifying course first & then we can only carry Dept. approved ammo...in the case of the .223 ammo it's the Hornady TAP in 55 grains.
Now, we have a few Officers who already owned rifles in .308 (M1A's or AR-10's) & didn't want to go through the hassle/extra cost of obtaining another rifle....just to get one chambered in .223. So I made a proposal to the Chief that we allow them to qualify with those rifles, but only allow them to use the Hornady 110 grain TAP ammo and nothing heavier.
The 110 grain ammo is perfectly fine for use....offering a bullet with a bigger "OOMPH" than an .223 round but a negligable difference in penetration....I think it was actually less.
I recently requested through our Chief that he allow .308 rifles along with .223 caliber rifles for patrol carry. Our Dept. currently only allows rifles chambered in .22 caliber to be carried & used on duty by Officers.
They can be personally owned, but we all have to pass a Dept. approved qualifying course first & then we can only carry Dept. approved ammo...in the case of the .223 ammo it's the Hornady TAP in 55 grains.
Now, we have a few Officers who already owned rifles in .308 (M1A's or AR-10's) & didn't want to go through the hassle/extra cost of obtaining another rifle....just to get one chambered in .223. So I made a proposal to the Chief that we allow them to qualify with those rifles, but only allow them to use the Hornady 110 grain TAP ammo and nothing heavier.
The 110 grain ammo is perfectly fine for use....offering a bullet with a bigger "OOMPH" than an .223 round but a negligable difference in penetration....I think it was actually less.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I checked around and found several large agencies that allow 308's for patrol rifles. I am collecting any info I can find to make the proposal. Our firearms unit supervisor is for it, he just feels that with our budget in the shape it's in, now might not be a good time. Also, I understand an outsiders argument about over penetrating or excessive caliber issues, but with our role being what it is, hopefully open minds will listen. Thanks to all that replied to my PM's.
I checked around and found several large agencies that allow 308's for patrol rifles. I am collecting any info I can find to make the proposal. Our firearms unit supervisor is for it, he just feels that with our budget in the shape it's in, now might not be a good time. Also, I understand an outsiders argument about over penetrating or excessive caliber issues, but with our role being what it is, hopefully open minds will listen. Thanks to all that replied to my PM's.
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
I used the information taken from the Hornady Testing and Application guide that you can download for free from their website.....
http://www.hornadyle.com/_img/hornady_tap_report.pdf
In it, you will be able to fend off the old thinking of <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">" A .308 is too powerful & will over-penetrate..."</span></span>
The total penetration of a .223 55 grain TAP round into bare gelatin was <span style="font-weight: bold">10 inches </span>out of a 14.5 inch barrel AR15, with 59% fragmentation. Running this round through a ballsitic program shows it had <span style="font-weight: bold">908 ft. lbs of energy at 50 yards</span>...which is a good distance for typical Patrol Use
The total penetration of a .308 110 grain TAP round into bare geletin was <span style="font-weight: bold">9.75 inches </span>out of an 18 inch M1A, with 82% fragmentation, and <span style="font-weight: bold">2043 ft. lbs of energy at 50 yards</span> !!
So let's review the testing...:
The new Hornady .308 110 TAP ammo actually <span style="font-weight: bold">penetrates LESS </span>in ballistic gel than the .223 55 grain TAP, with <span style="font-weight: bold">MORE fragmentation</span> & <span style="font-weight: bold">TWICE the Ft. Lbs. of Energy </span>at 50 yards.....
Show this information to the next Administrator who thinks .308 ammo is not for LE use.....
I used the information taken from the Hornady Testing and Application guide that you can download for free from their website.....
http://www.hornadyle.com/_img/hornady_tap_report.pdf
In it, you will be able to fend off the old thinking of <span style="font-style: italic"><span style="font-weight: bold">" A .308 is too powerful & will over-penetrate..."</span></span>
The total penetration of a .223 55 grain TAP round into bare gelatin was <span style="font-weight: bold">10 inches </span>out of a 14.5 inch barrel AR15, with 59% fragmentation. Running this round through a ballsitic program shows it had <span style="font-weight: bold">908 ft. lbs of energy at 50 yards</span>...which is a good distance for typical Patrol Use
The total penetration of a .308 110 grain TAP round into bare geletin was <span style="font-weight: bold">9.75 inches </span>out of an 18 inch M1A, with 82% fragmentation, and <span style="font-weight: bold">2043 ft. lbs of energy at 50 yards</span> !!
So let's review the testing...:
The new Hornady .308 110 TAP ammo actually <span style="font-weight: bold">penetrates LESS </span>in ballistic gel than the .223 55 grain TAP, with <span style="font-weight: bold">MORE fragmentation</span> & <span style="font-weight: bold">TWICE the Ft. Lbs. of Energy </span>at 50 yards.....
Show this information to the next Administrator who thinks .308 ammo is not for LE use.....
Re: LEO Question - Approved rifle
My agency allows it.
I know that a lot of LEOs have been brainwashed on liability issues; this is largely due to paranoid / PC administrators. There is no "liability" that a competent attorney can't justify for LE with a .308 (or many other calibers). Kinda like when they used to require us to use 00 buck in a 12 gauge as the only long gun option and babble about the "liability" of a slug or rifle round. Better to disperse those .33 pellets all over the AO than to use accurately fired bullets, eh? LIABILITY!! Better to use a handgun-range long gun with less-than-handgun-ammo-accuracy loads to take out an active shooter at the mall the week before Christmas; no liability there!
I should state up front that I have never been a fan of the .223. I recognize that many people think it is the ultimate cartridge, because the military uses it. I remember when the military adopted the M-9; lotsa cops just had to have one because if it's good enough for a backup weapon for the military, it's gotta be a perfect primary weapon for LE, right? I can't think of any other weapon made that well with such a horrible trigger. And the 9mm Para doesn't exactly blow my dress up (it gets the job done; I wouldn't refuse to carry it if I had to but I prefer larger bullets). Fortunately, those people don't get to decide what I carry. I don't need the ammo weight savings; when I worked patrol my rifle and ammunition rode in the car. Now that I work investigations my rifle and ammunition ride in the truck. The vehicle totes the ammo for me, and I don't need a 500 round loadout.
As long as we can demonstrate proficiency with the weapon my chief allows pretty much whatever we want to carry. Including personally-owned NFA weapons. If you're unsafe with a .308 you'll be unsafe with a .223.
These are some of the advantages of working for a small agency where the boss knows everyone personally. You won't find that sort of leeway in a larger agency.
My agency allows it.
I know that a lot of LEOs have been brainwashed on liability issues; this is largely due to paranoid / PC administrators. There is no "liability" that a competent attorney can't justify for LE with a .308 (or many other calibers). Kinda like when they used to require us to use 00 buck in a 12 gauge as the only long gun option and babble about the "liability" of a slug or rifle round. Better to disperse those .33 pellets all over the AO than to use accurately fired bullets, eh? LIABILITY!! Better to use a handgun-range long gun with less-than-handgun-ammo-accuracy loads to take out an active shooter at the mall the week before Christmas; no liability there!
I should state up front that I have never been a fan of the .223. I recognize that many people think it is the ultimate cartridge, because the military uses it. I remember when the military adopted the M-9; lotsa cops just had to have one because if it's good enough for a backup weapon for the military, it's gotta be a perfect primary weapon for LE, right? I can't think of any other weapon made that well with such a horrible trigger. And the 9mm Para doesn't exactly blow my dress up (it gets the job done; I wouldn't refuse to carry it if I had to but I prefer larger bullets). Fortunately, those people don't get to decide what I carry. I don't need the ammo weight savings; when I worked patrol my rifle and ammunition rode in the car. Now that I work investigations my rifle and ammunition ride in the truck. The vehicle totes the ammo for me, and I don't need a 500 round loadout.
As long as we can demonstrate proficiency with the weapon my chief allows pretty much whatever we want to carry. Including personally-owned NFA weapons. If you're unsafe with a .308 you'll be unsafe with a .223.
These are some of the advantages of working for a small agency where the boss knows everyone personally. You won't find that sort of leeway in a larger agency.
