LE Patrol Weapon: Carbines and/or Shotguns?

[tkoglman]

I guess this is the correct forum to post this as it boils down to a training issue mostly (at least the way I currently see it).

I'm currently investigating the wisdom (or lack thereof) in eliminating the pump action shotgun (870) from routine patrol use at my police department. I was hoping to get some feedback on my arguments, here, before I send anything up the chain of command. Keep in mind that I am only discussing the weapons and ammunition we currently field: 870's with 00-buck and rifled slugs and M4/M16 type carbines with M193 and 77g BTHP. I am also not considering the use of special munitions - which we do not have.

As I see it, there are two areas to consider: capabilities and training.

Capabilities:

I will concede, although I do not have any empirical evidence, that the standard 12ga shotgun firing either 00-buck or rifled slugs at common law enforcement engagement ranges has an edge in terminal performance over the 5.56mm. I would agrue, though, that this advantage is slight, possibly non-existent, and comes at a high cost in terms of other capabilities.

The carbine (I am specifically refering to M4-type weapons firing 5.56mm) has a clear advantage in the ability to deliver precision fire at ranges from the muzzle to maximum conceivable law enforcement ranges. The carbine also retains its terminal performance at greater ranges than the shotgun.

The carbine has less penetration of barriers (intentional and otherwise) than buckshot (at very close range) and rifled slugs (at all typical LE ranges). This is an advantage of the carbine if your concern is over-penetration of targets and the flight path of misses/ricochets. It is an advantage of the shotgun (particularly rifled slugs) when you have need to intentionally penetrate barriers. The carbine will consistently penetrate soft body armor while the shotgun will not. (We have very recently begun to encounter subjects wearing soft body armor where it was non-existent in the recent past)

I believe, overall, that the difference in the capabilities of the ammunition is not the deciding factor. Both shotguns and carbines are certainly lethal at typical LE engagement ranges. Other capabilities, though, are more distinctly different.

The carbine is capable of sustained one-handed firing (reference the famed FBI Miami shoot-out if you don't believe this capability has any merit). The carbine can deliver faster follow-up shots. The carbine has a much higher ammunition capacity combined with faster reloads. It is easier to switch ammunition with a carbine. The carbine fits into police cruisers better (our newer cars cannot carry our older 20" 870's due to lack of cabin space).

Here's the one that may draw the fire. The carbine has higher practical reliability than the shotgun. While both the carbine and 870 are mechanically reliable and durable weapons, in actual use, I believe the carbine is more reliable. I have seen far more instances when an 870 has not fired or put into a state of not being able to fire due to operator error than I have seen with the carbine. I believe the design and manual of arms of the 870 lends itself to operator error. In particular, short-stroking, inadvertant safety engagement, mistakes made in loading/reloading (rounds shoved in backwards, rounds trapped under the carrier, rounds dropped) are far too common. The only typical reliability issue I have seen with the carbine is inadequate lubrication.

That brings me to the next area.

Training:

My department currently conducts firearms training quarterly. Each officer receives at least two hours of firearms training each quarter. During that training, we must qualify each officer on their duty pistol/s (Detectives have two G17/G21 and G19), back-up guns, off-duty weapons, carbines, and shotguns. One quarter is also devoted to night shooting (we only have an outdoor range) and the current powers that be allow little more than the meager state low-light qualification during this quarter. (I unsuccessfully tried to change that this year).

By eliminating the shotgun, I would have over a 25% gain in training time which could be applied to other needed skills. More time could be spent on pistol and carbine training. Instead of spreading my training time over three weapon systems, I would now only have two.

Most officers exhibit poor proficency operating the shotgun and seem to start from scratch each year. Very few of my officers had any significant firearms experience before becoming police officers. The ones that did mostly were taught on the M4/M16 in the military. The firearms experience of the majority has come from the police academy and our in-service training which, justifiably, concentrates on the semi-automatic pistol. My officers handle/use their pistols daily and have a generally high average level of proficiency with those weapons. The operation of the pump action shotgun is so significantly different from the semi-auto pistol that it becomes a huge training hurdle and the result is that few officers employ the shotgun, when they should, because of their lack of confidence with the weapon. (See my above comments on practical reliability)

The operation of the carbine, though, is a much easier transition for most officers to make. The military veterans have a huge advantage here. The operation, both mechanically and practically, of the carbine is very similar to the semi-auto pistol. It operates nearly identically with the major differences being the locations of some controls and the selector switch. This results in less training time needed for basic operation and higher officer confidence. I have observed that when officers are equipped with both carbines and shotguns in dual racks, inevitably the officers take the carbines.

The lighter recoil of the carbine allows officers to fire hundreds of rounds in a training session with little to no discomfort. The shotgun, on the other hand, has a definate limit to the number of rounds a typical officer can fire before the discomfort begins to negatively impact the training value of continued live fire. In the same amount of training time, I believe an officer can receive both a greater quantity at a higher quality of training with a carbine over a shotgun. Add to this the additional training time with the carbine that would be available if the shotgun was eliminated, and the proficiency of officers with the carbine would greatly increase.

Conclusion:

The pump action shotgun has very little capability that is not duplicated or exceeded with the carbine. The proficency of the typical patrol officer is greater with the carbine than the shotgun. The result of the elimination of the shotgun, along with a reduction in costs to maintain two basically redundant systems), would have very little to no reduction in officer firearms capabilities while it would significantly increase officer's proficiency with the carbine. My department does not currently have the resources to both equip and train officers to an acceptable level of proficiency with both the shotgun and the carbine. One should be eliminated in favor of the other. The carbine's advantages over the shotgun far exceed its disadvantages.

I would greatly appreciate any constructive comments/criticism of my arguments here. Hopefully I provided enough information to allow thoughtful discussion. I would also welcome any citations of evidence to support one weapon system over the other and any experiences other police firearms trainers have had with this same issue.

Thank you for taking the time to read what I have written,

Tom Koglman

[John_Wayne777]

It sounds to me like you've got a very logical case for weening the department off of the 870. I've been shooting an 870 of some form since I was twelve, and I STILL manage to short stroke the weapon every now and then when using it in the field.

...and that's only shooting it at a little bird/rabbit/whatever.

Now whether or not the case you lay out will make the guys wearing the white shirts listen is another matter.....:D

I'm not a professional in this arena, but I do have some experience in public administration and it seems to me you have at least one major issue to deal with:

"We've always done it that way"

Police use of the shotgun goes back a very long time and odds are that the decision makers in your department "grew up" with the police shotgun. Reflex alone will probably be to resist the idea of giving up the 870 because of that. Further, there is a mystical lore that surrounds the power and utility of the shotgun and it has become almost an article of faith in the minds of many.

If you can in some way objectively demonstrate the issues with qualification (which ties into liability....key motivator of practically everybody in public administration) and objectively show that officers are not deploying the weapon in situations that call for it because they are not comfortable with its use, you can help combat those effects. By "objectively show" I mean get some numbers and generate charts and graphs. Charts and graphs have a mystical ability to sway the thinking of decision makers in public institutions for reasons that escape me. You can have an experienced SME talk to them until he's blue in the face and get nothing, but throw in a pie chart and suddenly the wheels start clicking.

The success of proposals like the one you are laying out here often depends on the extent to which someone can quantify the reality, costs, and benefits of the relevant factors involved.

[Failure2Stop]

I agree with you in your observations.

While in a perfect world we would be given adequate time/facilities/ammo to train pistol, carbine, and shotgun, the reality is that most organizations do not. If I had to eliminate one of the three, it would be the shotgun.

While the shotgun does a few things very well, the carbine does most of them, and others, better. All the shotgun brings to the table is non-lethal and breaching. Absent those two requirements, the shotgun is not needed.

As you said, it all comes down to training time, and focusing on the benefits of increasing the training time by 1/3 at no additional cost should appeal to bean-counters.

[the1911fan]

If you issue a rifle to each officer I would agree. If you issue them to patrol cars not so much, unless you are running an RDS. I have seen iron sight zero's be off quite a bit from officer to officer.

I have taken multiple 30 year old 870's out of the armory..no cleaning/no lube and they all have gone Bang everytime.


IMO I'd like to have all of them (we do) but if 1 had to go it would be the 870

[Delta1067]

For the sake of further discussion, I am going to disagree with you. I currently carry both a M-4 and an 870 at work. If the situation calls for a long gun, I almost always choose my M-4. This is primarily because I am very effective with an M-4, the increased ammo (30 Vs 5), and my M-4 has a mounted flashlight as the 870 does not.

This being said, I would argue that the average police officer has mediocre firearm skills. Most only shoot or train when the department mandates it. An 870 is a reliable weapon and it is IMHO easier to put hits on the target for someone with average firearm skills. Everyone can shoot an 870 effectively, but not everyone will be effective with a patrol rifle.

Officers will not take care of their long guns. They will throw them in the trunks and get them out once every 3 months. An 870 can handle this, but a M-4 will not. Officers will "play" with the sights on a M-4 and they will loose their zeros. You will not have this problem with 870s.

For your more advanced officers, give them a M-4 and some good training. For everyone else, give them a shotgun to abuse.

[John_Wayne777]

This being said, I would argue that the average police officer has mediocre firearm skills. Most only shoot or train when the department mandates it. An 870 is a reliable weapon and it is IMHO easier to put hits on the target for someone with average firearm skills. Everyone can shoot an 870 effectively, but not everyone will be effective with a patrol rifle.


I find this view curious....

The 870 is a weapon with poorer sights, more recoil, and is more difficult to use under stress by most objective standards.

Have folks you've trained on the platforms shown considerably more aptitude with the shotgun over the carbine?

[ToddG]

Without getting into the debate of which is better and following on to what JW777 said, find an important ally in your agency: chicks.

If your agency is large enough to have a significant number of smaller-statured females, arrange for some time on the firing line with them. Have them do a comparison of their comfort level and proficiency with both the shotgun and carbine after no (if possible) or minimal (if necessary) preparatory training that day.

Measure things like: Time it takes to make the first good hit on a torso at reasonable ranges.
Time it takes to make multiple good hits on a torso at reasonable ranges.
Time it takes to make multiple good hits on a torso at reasonable ranges from a prone position of cover.
Time it takes to reload from an empty gun and make two good hits on a torso at reasonable ranges.
Time it takes to make a "rescue shot" (yeah, I hate the term, too) at 15 yards or so ... start with buck in the SG if that is SOP, and keep track of how many times the hostage target gets tagged with a ball if the officers don't select slug. This is an easy win-win for the carbine.
The number of stoppages or malfunctions experienced with each weapon system (specifically to include any shooter-induced problems such as short stroking)
The officers' subjective comfort with each weapon.
The officers' subjective confidence with each weapon.

Now you've got your charts and graphs. If you've got a few photos of perfectly placed 5.56mm holes in the head of some "hostage takers" and a few photos of errant #00 balls hitting hostage targets, I'd include them, as well. :cool:

You could also play off the soft body armor situation by comparing: Time it takes to engage target at reasonable distance with one good torso hit using the carbine.
Time it takes to engage target at reasonable distance with a body armor drill (however your agency performs them) with the SG.

If you are in a jurisdiction that allows it, find out how much the shotguns are worth as trade-in toward new rifles (if you need them) or practice ammo. Show the suits that there are bottom line financial benefits.

Finally, make sure you have a copy of FBI SSA Boone's work on 5.56mm penetration through building materials (you can call the FBI Academy and request it with your agency letterhead, last I knew). You may not need it, but it will be handy -- and professional -- if the powers that be offer the erroneous argument that the 5.56mm is too "dangerous" indoors and you can just whip out a well established, much repeated study done by the Eff Bee Eye.

[tkoglman]

"We've always done it that way"



You hit the nail on the head with that one.

The current administration is on their way out. Here in Ohio, we have a program called DROP which, without getting to deep in the details, has a time when those enrolled in it MUST retire. My Chief, Patrol Division Captain, and the Lieutenant currently in charge of the firearms program all have to retire within two months of each other in 2011. I am a sergeant and the next in line to run the firearms program.

The problem is that the current Chief wants to spend money to buy new shotguns. I proposed purchasing LMT's and 870's in equal amounts, but with the budgetting currently in progress, I think he would be apt to drop the carbine purchases in favor of the shotgun purchases if the budget required.

One victory I have scored, though, is to convince the Chief and Lt. to allow us to run an 8 hour carbine course for all our officers. The main argument that achieved this was that the shotgun is taught in the academy while the carbine is not. I think I can use it to demonstrate the capabilities of the carbine.

On female officers: We have none. I am fortunate to work for a department that, at least, has the proper ideas on physical fitness. We have yet to have a female applicant score well enough on our entrance physical fitness test to get hired. Our overall score, for hiring, is 75% written exam; 25% physical fitness exam. So, I can't use that argument.

Todd G: I like your ideas on objectively testing the capabilities of officers with shotguns vs. carbines. I'll have to put something together to do that. One problem I have is that the current adminstration is totally against quantifying any marksmanship. When we did our Glock transition training, I, for the first time, showed up on the line with a clip board and score sheet for each shooter and my shot timer. That did not go over well. I stuck with it, though, but after everyone qualified, I was instructed to destroy the score sheets. It may be that I must just begin compiling all the data, so that when the command change comes, I can present it to the new Chief.

Delta1067: We have cabin racks for our carbines, so they would avoid a good deal of abuse that way. We also have support cars (each officer has their own car) so all of our weapons are individual issue. I initially ordered LMT's with LMT's rear sight, but when it comes time to place the next order, I may order them without sights and instead order LaRue Tactical's BUIS to avoid the problem with screwing with the sight dope. I wish I could get funding for Aimpoints, but that is something of a pipe dream right now.

I appreciate everyone's comments. I'm glad to know that, so far, no one thinks I'm completely off base (none of you must be police administrators). You've given me some good ideas.

Thanks.

[sff70]

I've gone down this road with my agency already.

The carbine can do everything the shotgun can do, with more accuracy (more effective, less liability), less penetration than slugs (less liability), only 1 projectile to control (less liability), less recoil (easier to shoot), fewer operator induced stoppages (more reliable), is easier to install a light on and/or to use a handheld light with (more effective and less liability), easier to operate 1 handed, only 1 type of ammo to keep track of, lighter, more ergonomic, more compact, the rifle will penetrate body armor while the shotgun won't, shotgun is difficult to reload under stress and in lowlight, and on and on.

Consider also that slugs have not 1, but 2 projectiles. The wad goes where it will, not where the weapon is aimed. This has implications for shots on bad guys with innocents in close proximity.

Do a head to head comparison of realistic shooting situations for your admin, having THEM do the shooting.

The decision will be obvious.

Those who believe the shotgun is useful due to the array of less lethal and other payloads that can be fired out of it overlook the fact that you aren't going to use the SAME shotgun for lethal and less-lethal ammo. Not gonna happen. Too much risk of confusing lethal for less lethal in cop situations (under stress, lowlight, etc.).

[sff70]

In addition, for those who claim that shotguns are the answer, put hostage and hostage taker targets in very close proximity, as they are in reality.

Have 3 shooters, one each with buck, slug, and rifle.

Now make them do some wind sprints and pushups to increase the heart rate.

Give them 2 seconds to get off their shot.

Do several drills at realistic distances, 5 yds out to 25 or 30 yds.

Note: there was such an incident last week in Oregon. Bad guy DRT, hostage safe. Patrol rifle worked as it should have.

Ask yourself, if your loved one is at risk, which weapon system do you want the responding officers to bring with them?

Note - this is not to show the patrol rifle is a sniper rifle - it isn't. It's to show how much superior it is to a scattergun as a general use weapon.