View Full Version : Opinions on issuance of weapons
So I'm in the firearms/training department for my agency. We are currently having a discussion on changing the way we issue our M4 rifles.
We have under 200 rifles and over 400 agents. In the most ideal situation, we'd have a rifle assigned to each individual, and that rifle would be zeroed to that person, and set up (within policy) to suit that person's preference. Obviously this can't be done due to the shortage in equipment. So what we currently have going on is a quantity of rifles designated as "pool" or general issue.
We also have rifles set aside for training only and these are used for all agents (except those with assigned weapons) to run quarterly qualifications with. Generally speaking, most agents don't have to make any major adjustments for scoring purposes, but you have from time to time where a guy picks it up and his groups need anywhere from four to six inches of adjustment.
My question is, do you think it would be better to scrap the general issue rifles and just assign all the rifles to a user based on how often they check them out (some don't check out long arms, some prefer shotguns)? Or would it be better to leave it as is based on the "it is better for a guy to have a pool rifle than not a rifle at all" mantra?
Being an LE agency, one of the issues here is liability. It would be great for everyone who doesn't have an assigned weapon to be able to check out a long arm from a pool, but what if he's the one guy that is way off and he ends up not eliminating the threat or hitting an unintended target?
We have 14.5" M4A1s with Eotech 553 red dots. We have a mix of Matech and MI BUIS on them. All rifles have fixed front sight posts.
I'm not the one with the most weight on the matter, but feedback from the SMEs or people with LE experience will help me contribute to this quandary.
Thanks M4C.
Voodoo_Man
08-21-13, 20:41
My agency has a pool of rifles, no one (other than special units) is assigned a rifle. They are zeroed to who knows what with fixed front and carry handle rear, and who knows what kind of ammo, or the last time they were cleaned. This is not the way to do it.
Other agencies around were I work all have an individual officer rifle program. You can buy your own rifle, spec it out, and carry it on duty. All within department regulations and with deptartment issue ammo. Those officers who don't want to purchase their own rifle can sign out rifles from a pool of completely identical rifles, equipment, zero, ammo. That way seems to work the best for budget and application reasons.
Have all your agents completed a rifle course?
Are there qualification standards?
How do you work - 3 shifts, set beats/areas, set units, etc?
Do you check out the guns each day at the beginning of shift?
Annnd, at what range do you expect/allow folks to take shots?
In my experience with pool items, the fewer people who use the equipment, the longer it will last. If the same 3 or 4 officers use the same unit and it's equipment there will be more accountability and respect for the equipment. So at the absolute minimum I'd make sure that everyone knew that rifle 168 belongs to Joe and Phil.
As an early poster mentioned, without a regular inspection program sometimes pool items can get kind of funky - supervisors need to regularly inspect all vehicle equipment. When issuing stuff to specific officers to share, one goob coupled with 3 squared away guys equals peer pressure to shape up; three goobs paired with one switched on guy ends with hard feelings and discontent all around.
The advantage of a pool program combined with enforced inspection and maintenance is that you don't spend time at the beginning and end of shifts checking out and turning in weapons. That probably also equals less AD's but on the other hand it limits the opportunity to become familiar with handling the weapon safely.
Main disadvantage as I see it, you probably limit the effective range for precision fire - although most folks SHOULD be in the ball park; obviously if you just put them in the units and don't ever maintain or inspect that is a disadvantage and potentially a liability problem.
If I wanted to issue I'd start by finding out how many want to have a rifle EVERY day. If it was substantially less than 200, there you go, issue to those that want one EVERY day, designate the remaining rifles to be checked out and checked in.
Another way to handle it might be to initially issue rifles based on a hierarchy of need - first priority being patrol/field agents; second priority patrol/field supervisors; third priority non-supervisory investigators; and so on. Figure out the magic number needed to ensure that all the street folks and street supervisors get one, then work out a check out system for everyone else. (I assume TAC has issued weapons.)
Just some ideas, hope you get something that works.
All agents complete a very crude familiarization at the academy. There aren't "standards" per se, just a minimum score for qualification. Failures get remedial qualifications. I don't think anyone has failed a rifle qual. There are three main patrol groups and items are checked out after muster. Last question is too dynamic to answer, but we primarily work in an remote, austere, environment. There is a small town, but the local sheriff's office patrols that mostly.
Voodoo, we are federal and we are not allowed to purchase any of our firearms. Even changing a pistol grip on the M4 is technically considered armorer level and is against policy.
Going down a list of who checks out rifles the most often is a good place to start and we've already thrown that idea around.
Establish a minimum firearms proficiency with other issued firearms. Use that as a guide to determine who might be best qualified and ASSIGN them to individual officers. Are some agents working in the field more than others? They might need the rifle more then the desk jockey.
You already have a group who have assigned rifles (SWAT/tactical teams I'd guess) so the concept of assigning rifles isn't foreign to your organization.
It will help ensure that the weapons are cared for properly. The users will know the zero is right. It may also force those who aren't assigned rifles based on standards to up their game if they want one.
This principle in general can be applied to most agency equipment. Want it maintained in good working order, ready for use? Assign it to an individual. Fleet/pool stuff gets destroyed (and m&p not y excessive use, buy people or caring and not taking ownership).
If you want to bolster your case for individually assigned guns:
Take a sample of shooters at the low, middle and high end of your scoring spread. Shoot them on pool guns and guns zeroed for them specifically, and quantify the differences in performance through various shooting exercises.
Voodoo_Man
08-22-13, 07:44
Ouch.
If policy doesn't allow it then you are, sadly, stuck.
I'd say try to figure out what group guys fall into, what the general amount of guys like, in terms of rifle setups - maybe a survey when guys go through qualification? Equipment, zero of the rifle, optic, sling, etc? And then setup two or three different pools guys can choose from based on options?
Failure2Stop
08-22-13, 08:22
THE advantage of the carbine is its ability to precisely place fight-stopping hits. Depriving the user of a personalized zero removes this advantage and the confidence to employ the weapon.
My recommendation:
Give the carbines to the 200 shooters that can use them to their potential and want them.
Where I'm at I have a assigned rifle. Zero and do a qualifications at min 2 times a year. I would ask for the sake of liability / law suit prevention to be assigned to each individual that wants / needs to carry rifle, the same for shotgun. One of our shotguns patterns very low and a few high. Probably due to "use" of being tossed in trunk. With assigned weapons =better maintenance (hopefully).
IMHO
FYI I'm fed too with pool vehicles same issues with them. I prefer having "my" own rifle vs pool gun of the day. I would have second thoughts about using un zeroed to me rifle for a use of force situation as a primary weapon.
I prefer individually assigned equipment, especially patrol rifles. Accountability actually occurs when only one person is responsible.
We currently assign most of our equipment to the patrol car. Our shotguns, rifles, citation handhelds, laptop and cell phone are assigned to the car. Needless to say I have to zip tie my cell phone charger to stop people from taking it. Some days I spend an hour tracking down my laptop. It's ridiculous.
As far as rifles go. Our nearest range is 100 yards and most of our guys can easily qualify with an Aimpoint at that distance. If we had higher standards then an individually zeroed gun might make sense.
All agents complete a very crude familiarization at the academy. There aren't "standards" per se, just a minimum score for qualification. Failures get remedial qualifications. I don't think anyone has failed a rifle qual. There are three main patrol groups and items are checked out after muster. Last question is too dynamic to answer, but we primarily work in an remote, austere, environment. There is a small town, but the local sheriff's office patrols that mostly.
Voodoo, we are federal and we are not allowed to purchase any of our firearms. Even changing a pistol grip on the M4 is technically considered armorer level and is against policy.
Going down a list of who checks out rifles the most often is a good place to start and we've already thrown that idea around.
JMO, but rifles should be individually assigned, always. If you don't have enough to go around, the first priority should be a risk asessment. What shift has the most likelihood of an armed encounter? Which agents are most likely to have the least amount of backup available? Which officers perform the most interdiction efforts? Which agents are most likely to work without direct supervision?
If you have any left over after arming these agents, go by general qualifications. Those with the most experience and capability with the platform should get the rest. Those who do without either don't need them, or need to improve their qualifications.
Has the agency explored any reciprocal programs with other agencies or DoD to utilize unissued inventory taking up rack space elsewhere? Just a thought.
We currently assign most of our equipment to the patrol car. Our shotguns, rifles, citation handhelds, laptop and cell phone are assigned to the car. Needless to say I have to zip tie my cell phone charger to stop people from taking it. Some days I spend an hour tracking down my laptop. It's ridiculous.
Are you using the same unit every day, sharing it with the same people?
That is the only way I think 'pool' stuff even comes close to working.
Are you using the same unit every day, sharing it with the same people?
That is the only way I think 'pool' stuff even comes close to working.
Ideally I would just share with one or two other officers. Unfortunately the officer I share with hurt his back in January and is out of work. On my days off it has become the "spare" car.
I'm on vacation this week and I fear for what kind of shape my car is in when I get back to work.
I would assign x number to personnel and keep the remaining for the pool.
Assign the rifles to distribute among shifts and assignments and also to the higher skilled individuals. Check for instance days off and realign if need be to have coverage with days off) Have a minimum left for pool so each shift will have them available for check out.(example, 10 in a pool so each oncoming shift will have 5 for check out)
What's key is the supervisors checking to make sure that the issued ones are being utilized and the pool guns are actually taken out each shift. Monitor all guns to make sure gear is squared away and the tackleberry's don't have unapproved wizbang crap on it.
From what I've seen, the pool guns need to be kept basic otherwise and it's pretty friggin sad that a $5 sling ends up missing, parts broke with no reporting, etc. Most places don't have a dedicated armorer to check weapons in and out. Yeah, that's ideal, but be real.
Since I don't know your agency structure, it's hard to recommend more than I did. Bottom line, issue as many as you can, make sure they are taken to training and do inspections on them to insure proper maintenance and care.
If you can, set up x number as DM's with extra training and a more stringent qualification.
My department issues them individually. Those outside of narcotics and tac have a rifle assigned to them. The basic rifle issued by the department is a Rock River with a sling and light. We are only allowed Colt or RRA, and have to attend a week long class in order to carry that. We aren't able to sign out rifles, only shotguns that we shoot a little through the academy. Once someone is assigned a rifle, if they pass the week course, you have to zero and keep a log book every month and qualify twice a year. Every year a ton of officers fail their quals and have to give up the rifles and wait 6 months before they're able to get into the class again. I like the idea of personally issued rifles over a pool of them, I know what my rifle has been through and that it's maintained, not to mention it's set up by me, for me.
Thanks all for the suggestions and opinions. Ironically, those of you who are state and local have a ton more leeway to many of the things mentioned.
Without going too much into it, our supervisors aren't even knowledgeable enough to know what to look for to implement a maintenance and accountability schedule.
John Hearne
08-23-13, 19:49
One word answer - meritocracy....
Steve in PA
08-23-13, 21:35
The best thing would be for each officer to have their own rifle. Sadly, this is not logistically possibly in most departments.
My department has pool rifles. Every officer qualifies once a year with their handgun, dept shotgun and dept rifle. We qualify out to 100 yards with the rifles. Officers who shoot poorly do so, not because of pool rifles, but because they are poor shooters.
If they fail to qualify on the first go around, they are allowed re-qualify latter in the day. Second time around they shoot a lot better....with the same rifle they shot the first time.
El Vaquero
08-24-13, 16:49
Sadly, as with a lot of things in LE, administrators are behind the curve when it comes to patrol rifles. We also have pool rifles for our patrol officers. They check them in/out and beginning and end of shift.
I'm part of a specialized unit and after presenting my captain with a nice fat seizure check I asked if we could purchase my partner and I rifles assigned to us. His response was you can always check one out. My rebuttal was one of having it sighted in to my preference, don't have to worry about something being broken and it not having been reported, etc. He got irritated and said that was BS and gave me the big fat hell no. My agency does not allow individual purchase otherwise there would be no problem.
I dread the thought of attempting this, but does the shift plan allow you to assign a rifle to officers on multiple shifts? In other words, Rifle #17 will only be issued to Agents A, B. and C. While not ideal by any means, it would ensure that agents carry the same rifle on every shift.
The other option, already suggested, is to assign some rifles while leaving others as pool weapons. Do most agents routinely check out rifles at roll call?
RearwardAssist
08-24-13, 21:21
If I had a say in it I would generate a list of people that want them and then select the top 200 scores or what not to have them assigned.
I am not a proponent of pool rifles for reasons stated by others. In most agencies not everyone wants a carbine, so you might want to poll your personnel to find out who is interested. That would narrow the number of rifles you need in your inventory to satisfy the needs of your agency.
Is your agency eligible to get M16A1 rifles from the Department of the Army? It might be an avenue you can take to acquire more rifles so you have enough on hand to issue one to everyone who wants one.
When my agency first started our rifle program, we secured 400 M16A1 rifles from the Department of the Army. Most of the rifles we received had been run through an arsenal before storage and they were in terrific condition. I highly recommend looking into the program.
Key things that jump out at me are "Liability" and even more so, "Responsibility".
Someone needs to exert some leadership and make a decision i.e., These people will be issued carbines, these will not...pool weapons may work fine until you have to use one. If it goes bad, then what?
RioGrandeGreen
08-29-13, 19:35
CGSteve, we are in the same boat.
We Have Field Pool M4's only for duty use. Beginning each quarter every field pool M4 is zeroed by no less than 3 instructors. Optics (Eotech, Acog)and BUIS. It is cleaned and inspected thoroughly before it is ready for issue/field use. Mags also.
Range Pool M4's are the oldest used and most abused M4's we have. They are identified by red paint on trigger guard. They only are issued to agents who do not have an issued M4 for range quals only. If this rifle craps out it is at the range not in the field. It is fixed or turned in.
Issued M4's are usually no problem they are only used by that agent and it is zeroed and maintained by him. If they do not check it out, it is issued to someone who will take it out to the field.
For new guys If you score a perfect 250 on quals consistently you are given priority to have an issued M4 when one becomes available. They are also asked to check them out everyday to the field.
We had a morale patch made up and gave them to those who shot a perfect score. It really helped improved their scores and competency as everyone wanted one.
stay safe
RGGreen
Army Chief
08-29-13, 19:39
THE advantage of the carbine is its ability to precisely place fight-stopping hits. Depriving the user of a personalized zero removes this advantage and the confidence to employ the weapon.
My recommendation:
Give the carbines to the 200 shooters that can use them to their potential and want them.
This. Any other approach completely negates the advantage of having rifles available in the first place.
The "general issue" mentality is a legacy of the shotgun, but is (and always will be) ill-suited to carbines or rifles.
AC
This. Any other approach completely negates the advantage of having rifles available in the first place.
The "general issue" mentality is a legacy of the shotgun, but is (and always will be) ill-suited to carbines or rifles.
AC
Army Chief - Please understand that I agree, but I think your last statement is a little too absolute.
First, the harsh reality is that most agencies don't train officers to expert level marksmanship proficiency with the rifle, much less expert gunfighter proficiency, and most officers don't seek out training on their dime to improve themselves.
How many agencies limit themselves to a 50 or 100 yard qual on a normally sized target because of range availability? Within that 50 to 100 yard range, do you really think that a rifle sighted in by range staff is going to prevent anyone without a fundamental issue from qualifying?
While not ideal, I think that pool rifles, sighted in by more than one shooter, and then used for qualification would pass first muster liability wise.
Yep, if you miss and hit something your not supposed to, the agency is going to bite off liability based on you weren't sure of your target, backstop and beyond.
I'm fairly familiar with case law regarding firearms liability issues, and I've never seen a case addressing pool weapons, I could have missed one, if I have someone please point me in the right direction.
I would be more concerned about liability if I only had 200 rifles for 600 people and I decided to issue them to the 200 best shooters.
With my luck, shooter 201, who qualified less than 1 percentage point behind 200, but damn I ran out of rifles, gets in a shoot out where a rifle would have saved his bacon and I get smacked with a wrongful death suit for failing to provide him the same safety equipment I provided others.
The dang world isn't perfect, yep pool rifles are not the best solution, but if the alternative was no rifle at all........
Other than the issue with rifle zero, there are two points I would be concerned about.
1) Who is performing maintenance on the pool carbines and how often?
2) Which supervisor is monitoring the maintenance of the pool carbines?
Example: I assisted a LEO from a local agency at an armed robbery call and he responded with a shotgun that was in a vertical rack in his patrol car. Another officer from my agency responded to assist. After the call was concluded the other officer from my agency made a comment about the condition of the shotgun the local LEO was holding. When he inspected the shotgun, a large cigar butt fell out of the barrel when the shotgun was tilted. There was a round in the chamber and the action was frozen shut.
This was a recipe for disaster and one of several reasons I am not a proponent of pool shotguns or carbines.
Army Chief
08-30-13, 07:28
Army Chief - Please understand that I agree, but I think your last statement is a little too absolute.
First, the harsh reality is that most agencies don't train officers to expert level marksmanship proficiency with the rifle, much less expert gunfighter proficiency, and most officers don't seek out training on their dime to improve themselves.
How many agencies limit themselves to a 50 or 100 yard qual on a normally sized target because of range availability? Within that 50 to 100 yard range, do you really think that a rifle sighted in by range staff is going to prevent anyone without a fundamental issue from qualifying?
While not ideal, I think that pool rifles, sighted in by more than one shooter, and then used for qualification would pass first muster liability wise.
Yep, if you miss and hit something your not supposed to, the agency is going to bite off liability based on you weren't sure of your target, backstop and beyond.
I'm fairly familiar with case law regarding firearms liability issues, and I've never seen a case addressing pool weapons, I could have missed one, if I have someone please point me in the right direction.
I would be more concerned about liability if I only had 200 rifles for 600 people and I decided to issue them to the 200 best shooters.
With my luck, shooter 201, who qualified less than 1 percentage point behind 200, but damn I ran out of rifles, gets in a shoot out where a rifle would have saved his bacon and I get smacked with a wrongful death suit for failing to provide him the same safety equipment I provided others.
The dang world isn't perfect, yep pool rifles are not the best solution, but if the alternative was no rifle at all........
Good discussion. I find no fault with your logic. While it is only natural to want to extract maximum accuracy from a platform that is capable of it (and, as a green-suiter, I see individual zeroes as a key component of this), you're entirely correct about the attendant training and proficiency issues, as well as the likely employment roles.
A military shooter is far more likely to be taking a 250m shot than a peace officer, and a 50m LE shot with a cadre-installed RDS is probably not too much to hope for, regardless of who you put behind the trigger. I am persuaded. ;)
AC
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.