-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
SAWs for the cops
- Thread starter deersniper
- Start date
If I lived in a free state I would have about 10 more glocks from this site
No keep drinking. You'll get all kinds of cool surprises next week.
Ahhh the 249 semi that they still want $7k for so you can experience the engineering marvel that was specifically made to not allow any kind of different trigger group or trigger pack to ever be installed and making it a 25lb semi auto with a higher rate of failure, shitty carry ergonomics and the exact same rate of fire compared to any AR platform rifle you can buy on the market for 1/10th the price, 1/5th the weight and doesn't need to be dragged around by a carry handle.
What a fucking failure of an idea; there's a reason the words 'trade in' and 'still sealed in the original box' are in the same sentance. Even the fucking police couldn't figure out a use for it.
What a fucking failure of an idea; there's a reason the words 'trade in' and 'still sealed in the original box' are in the same sentance. Even the fucking police couldn't figure out a use for it.
The bigger question to me is why a police department felt compelled to order such a waste at taxpayers expense? I mean how stupid can you get?
Same exact reason agencies end up with shit like a Bearcat or MRAP.
They were approached and 'got a deal' on shit they didn't need, but it was cool guy stuff and why not? Whoever was in charge of procurement also didn't know a semi 249 from a hole in their head and thought they were buying a real one. Once it got to the armory, even the tacticool idiots didn't want to fuck with a lame ass semi SAW.
But you're right; at the root of this, who on this fucking planet thought any police force in existance needs a full auto squad level machine gun? It doesn't even remotely fit into any police/SWAT/whatever doctrine whatsoever.
You picked up on it without me even saying it!!! Yes, this was my first red flag upon seeing this.
Last edited:
Just on the basis of this alone, semiauto rifle bans in any and every jurisdiction should be immediately repealed. Every citizen who needs an AR and 30 round magazines should be able to obtain them. No matter where he lives. They are the civilian's ultimate force equalizer right now in the 21st century and access to them should not be barred in any way.
Seriously, they do shit like this and think that the public will trust them more???
Seriously, they do shit like this and think that the public will trust them more???
----------
...at the root of this, who on this fucking planet thought any police force in existance needs a full auto squad level machine gun?
----------
A police force that is scared of the citizenry that they are tasked to keep in line. Arms races are not just between countries and governments...
...at the root of this, who on this fucking planet thought any police force in existance needs a full auto squad level machine gun?
----------
A police force that is scared of the citizenry that they are tasked to keep in line. Arms races are not just between countries and governments...
Just slap a drum mag onto an AR, or better yet, link up enough standard mags via mag couplers until you got some sort of harmonica-style feeding device, put a barrel mounted carrying handle on the thing for the cool factor of being able to hip fire, finish up with a bipod, and there's your semiauto SAW, all ready for the zombies and whatnot...
I’d rather have a fightlite belt fed. At least I can put a fostech echo trigger or a Franklin armory binary trigger on it and get almost full auto at half the price.
Police preppers watchin Assult on Pecinct 13 one too many times.
They are still a complete hoot!
The need for a PD to have one... well, seems kind of stupid. I can't think of a single scenario where a semi-auto beltfed would be a value in L.E. Maybe intimidation? But that's now how it's supposed to work.... So not a good reason to spend taxpayer funds.
But for private citizen funds???? They are fun!!!! What else you going to spend that refund on... food? Shelter? Pshaw...
Cheers,
Sirhr
The need for a PD to have one... well, seems kind of stupid. I can't think of a single scenario where a semi-auto beltfed would be a value in L.E. Maybe intimidation? But that's now how it's supposed to work.... So not a good reason to spend taxpayer funds.
But for private citizen funds???? They are fun!!!! What else you going to spend that refund on... food? Shelter? Pshaw...
Cheers,
Sirhr
Some police departments order odd things, other departments have odd things given to them.
When I was between classes that I was teaching at a range, another department was on the other side of the wall, and I heard some full auto firing, so I thought I would take a look. The officer doing the shooting had a Thompson (I don't know which model) with the stick magazines and asked if I wanted to run a magazine though it. (as if he had to ask). He said that an elderly woman brought the gun into the PD decades ago after her husband died, and she just wanted it out of the house. It was a registered gun, and the PD just kept it in their armory. I had never fired a Thompson before. The 25-30 rounds sure went quickly...even in 2-4 round bursts...it was over with all too soon. My smile sure lasted a long time though.
When I was between classes that I was teaching at a range, another department was on the other side of the wall, and I heard some full auto firing, so I thought I would take a look. The officer doing the shooting had a Thompson (I don't know which model) with the stick magazines and asked if I wanted to run a magazine though it. (as if he had to ask). He said that an elderly woman brought the gun into the PD decades ago after her husband died, and she just wanted it out of the house. It was a registered gun, and the PD just kept it in their armory. I had never fired a Thompson before. The 25-30 rounds sure went quickly...even in 2-4 round bursts...it was over with all too soon. My smile sure lasted a long time though.
No problem, what color would you like Jerry? Para model perhaps?
I’ll bet that particular department was spending grant money, probably from the feds. They’re typically “use it or lose it” types of deals.
There was a sheriffs department around here with a registered Thompson. They found out how much it was worth and sold it. I think the gunsmithing academy in Trinidad CO bought it if I remember correctly. I would have loved to own it. I shot one at a machine gun shoot one time. Pretty damn fun.
Maybe I’ll buy one and the full auto conversion kit from china and pay through PayPal 
I don’t know why all the hate has anyone ever seen red dawn and heat
I don’t know why all the hate has anyone ever seen red dawn and heat
Last edited:
Just to play devil's advocate, I have a local sheriff's department that has been great with "demo" letters. For those that don't understand, a manufacturer can build a post 86 machine gun with a letter saying a law enforcement agency wishes to perhaps purchase one and would like a demo. I don't really believe this department needs a DP28 or a M2, but they've been kind enough to ask for a demonstration.
I cannot think of a single reason for an agency to have a saw, semi or full auto.
Need something to mount on top of the APC to intimidate the tax slave and keep them in line.
Last edited:
I am not saying police should have good guns and gear but a belt fed does not fit into the LEO agenda. There is no sustained rates of fire needed and the ROE are far different with the public that military in a combat zone. Good bolt or gas precision guns and AR type carbines will handle nearly any sort of thing I can think of that has ever been encountered in the US minus the Killdozer.
Our society would have to change a great deal before a state, county, or city police agency could convince me that they "need" belt fed, full auto weapons. I don't have an issue with select fire MP-5's, or even M-16/M4 type rifles, but belt fed full auto weapons don't fit with my view of protecting the public.
If our society changed to where police were engaging in frequent gun battles with armed groups of people I might be convinced of such a "need". Otherwise, belt fed, full auto weapons fit more with a philosophy of militarizing the police forces.
I think some departments get a mindset of police vs the public, rather than having a view that their job is to "protect and serve". (I am aware that SCOTUS has said that police have no duty to protect the public). The increasing militarization of some police forces is indicative of the "police vs public" philosophy. While I think this increased militarization is a dangerous trend, I do appreciate knowing that those departments see the public as their foe, rather than people they are to protect and serve.
If our society changed to where police were engaging in frequent gun battles with armed groups of people I might be convinced of such a "need". Otherwise, belt fed, full auto weapons fit more with a philosophy of militarizing the police forces.
I think some departments get a mindset of police vs the public, rather than having a view that their job is to "protect and serve". (I am aware that SCOTUS has said that police have no duty to protect the public). The increasing militarization of some police forces is indicative of the "police vs public" philosophy. While I think this increased militarization is a dangerous trend, I do appreciate knowing that those departments see the public as their foe, rather than people they are to protect and serve.
All that intimidation and showing the local public who is the biggest baddest thugs, and they still didn't catch the bad guy till they all went home and the local public started going out and about and one of them found the bad guy and called it in.
But what I always think about with those pictures of all those tough armored up guys riding on their vehicles is, they have no clue how things would change with a simply constructed firebomb.... Or someone knocking over a barrel of gasoline down the street they are "securing"....
And.........It is also fortunate that 99.999% of hoodrats and gangbangers are not precision shooters or contestants in combat pistol matches.
Where's an IED when you really need one?
Your recollection is incorrect. They have a duty to the public at large. They do not have a duty to protect any one particular individual or individuals.
But I get what you mean.
Pirate,
I'm not quite sure what the distinction is. You make an interesting point, and I will admit that I have not read the SCOTUS decision that set that ruling. I have read most of the others like Terry, etc. I really appreciate your information and am wondering it is an easy explanation of how the court decided public at large, but not individual people? Is the distinction something like if there was a riot, they have the duty to quell the riot, but they don't have the duty to protect Susan J. Public who was caught up in the riot?
In any case, thanks for the clarification. I'm not sure if it is any more reassuring though.
@Unknown
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - The New York Times
www.nytimes.com
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone - The New York Times
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)
Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...
I have to thank Pirate for his posting. His posting got me interested enough to research the case he refers to. Castle Rock V Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) is the Supreme Court case. In essence it says that Ms. Gonzales can't sue Castle Rock PD/and/or the city for not enforcing a restraining order she had. The decision has been studied by many legal colleges and was decried by women's groups as it pretty much gutted their ability to sue a police department or city for not enforcing a restraining order. As usual, the Supreme Court ruled in a narrow fashion so it's ruling couldn't be too broadly interpreted or used.
The decision pretty much says that if the police don't help individuals, there isn't much the public can do about it...even when statutes like domestic violence ones require an arrest. OF the police don't arrest for whatever reason, you can't sue them.
While Pirate is technically correct, the bottom line is still that the Supreme Court ruled that when the police don't protect the individual, there isn't much an individual can do about it. IOW, if the police don't want to protect you, there isn't much you can do about it.
The decision pretty much says that if the police don't help individuals, there isn't much the public can do about it...even when statutes like domestic violence ones require an arrest. OF the police don't arrest for whatever reason, you can't sue them.
While Pirate is technically correct, the bottom line is still that the Supreme Court ruled that when the police don't protect the individual, there isn't much an individual can do about it. IOW, if the police don't want to protect you, there isn't much you can do about it.
The women's rights groups pushed the stalking laws afterwards, and then the red flag laws followed.... very few understand how some supreme court rulings create collateral damages.
Which also led to stand your ground laws being passed and other home protection laws strengthened.
Hmm, to lawfully protect yourself.... puts it back on you to protect yourself using the rights guaranteed in CONUS....
Which also led to stand your ground laws being passed and other home protection laws strengthened.
Hmm, to lawfully protect yourself.... puts it back on you to protect yourself using the rights guaranteed in CONUS....
Last edited:
Yeah.... Belt fed is a bit superfluous. We already have a few select-fire AR's with Surefire 60 and 100 round mags and whatnot for really bad scenarios and they're not really available at the patrol level. The only difference is obviously you can't really switch barrels, per se. I wouldn't trust pretty much any copy in my department to know how to effectively employ a select-fire rifle anyway...
Who will protect you from the police is the question... buy more ammo, 308 is the new 223.
A canned 22 pressed, is like a bunny fart an stops things from getting to SHTF level. Buy an use more 22lr, the times coming,...
I actually was going to buy one of these until I found out that they are classified as a DD by the ATF and therefore not allowed in Rhode Island. I got to fire one a couple of years back in AZ. What a freaking hoot.
