View Full Version : Border Patrol Rifles Deadlining
A lot of this is going to be unsurprising to those exposed to bureaucracy.
Article here:
http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/10/24/us-border-patrol-deadlining-rifles-at-a-rate-that-is-detrimental-to-officer-safety/
Some snippets:
what’s startling about this whole inspection by the gun cleanliness Nazis out of Harper’s Ferry is how many rifles they deadlined and how many replacement rifles were received to take the place of the deadlined rifles. In one Border Patrol sector, roughly 2400 rifles are issued. Nearly half (1000 or so) were deadlined. Guess how many replacement rifles showed up? 150.
Ammunition. Despite wild eyed rumors and conspiracy theories about the feds buying up all of the ammo in the known world…..the Border Patrol has been hit hard by the ammo shortages just like the rest of us. They would issue 150 rounds per agent a quarter for practice ammo IF they had the ammo.
An interesting tidbit is that the Border Patrol has a DMR (Designated Marksman, Rifle) program. Using scopes scavenged from the military surplus program known as “DRMO,” the Border Patrol had a cheap but effective setup on their more accurate rifles. My source tells me that 90% of their DMR rifles are deadlined.
Yikes.
Apparently more to come
Voodoo_Man
10-25-14, 21:22
Yikes is right.
Unsurprising though.
Yikes is right.
Unsurprising though.
No kidding.
But hey, gotta pay for those blankets and meal packs for the border jumpers don't ya know.
Oh, jeez. I wonder how many weapons are actually deadlined, and how many are just there because the inspectors decided to be jacka$$es.
SuaSponte175
10-25-14, 23:09
Not surprised at all about this.
Oh, jeez. I wonder how many weapons are actually deadlined, and how many are just there because the inspectors decided to be jacka$$es.
or alternatively, how many of those rifles were out there and out-of-spec before inspectors found them and pulled them out of inventory?
or alternatively, how many of those rifles were out there and out-of-spec before inspectors found them and pulled them out of inventory?
I thought the article said they were all Colts?
I'm pretty sure he means out of spec (as in didn't pass gaging and inspections) not out of spec like Windham Craponry, DPMS, Shrubmaster, etc..
I thought the article said they were all Colts?
My take away from the article is that there seems to be a problem with the management, bureaucracy and funding at BP, rather than a problem with the performance, function or reliability of their rifles.
Sent from my PG41200 using Tapatalk 2
Part of the problem is that any sort of maintenance beyond cleaning is required to be done at either Harper's Ferry or Ft. Benning. Predictably the turn around on this is extremely slow and a lot of stations can't be without rifles for that long. As a result a lot of small issues tend to get overlooked and turn into big problems.
Add to that the fact that unlike pistols which get inspected by a firearms instructor every quarter before qualifications the rifles are rarely, if ever inspected.
All of this just compounds and makes for a lot of unreliable, or down right broken rifles.
Not to mention that funding always gets cut when Dems are in office.
Horned Toad
10-26-14, 18:22
P
Not to mention that funding always gets cut when Dems are in office.
Actually funding has dropped 10% for every year that there has been a continuing resolution, instead of a real budget.
JBecker 72
10-26-14, 18:49
They have to share rifles with other agents? What the hell is that about?
They have to share rifles with other agents? What the hell is that about?
Nickels and Dimes my friend...Nickels and Dimes.
Johnny Bean Counter found a way to save some coin, and a decision maker somewhere bought off on it.
The money spend by the current POTUS in one month of his "let's keep 'em here and feed 'em plan" would probably fix most if not all of these issues. BP needs to get a clue and have personnel in their individual sectors trained to fix these issues. If a phuking private in the military can work on weapons, so can I BP agent.
There are so many way to fix these problems but the money is being blown elsewhere.
The money spend by the current POTUS in one month of his "let's keep 'em here and feed 'em plan" would probably fix most if not all of these issues. BP needs to get a clue and have personnel in their individual sectors trained to fix these issues. If a phuking private in the military can work on weapons, so can I BP agent.
There are so many way to fix these problems but the money is being blown elsewhere.
It's the government, someone, somewhere along the way said "we should only let certified armorers at these locations service weapons" and someone else bought into it. It's all about making yourself invaluable so you job can't be done away with.
It's out of the Border Patrols hands. They're not the ones who make the decision to send all their weapons to Harper's Ferry and Benning. It's someone further up the chain than that.
Everyone knows how the government works. There's no quick fix to a situation like this. It will take a lot of time to convince someone to change the status quo.
That's not to say that there probably aren't some stations out there that do some work on their own. There are plenty of guys out there who, like most of us, have built their own rifles and have plenty of knowledge to be able to fix most issues. It's just not the norm and it's technically against policy so it'll never go widespread.
The money spend by the current POTUS in one month of his "let's keep 'em here and feed 'em plan" would probably fix most if not all of these issues. BP needs to get a clue and have personnel in their individual sectors trained to fix these issues. If a phuking private in the military can work on weapons, so can I BP agent.
There are so many way to fix these problems but the money is being blown elsewhere.
I'd say keeping the BP underfunded and less prepared is part of the overall plan.
Sent from my PG41200 using Tapatalk 2
I'd say keeping the BP underfunded and less prepared is part of the overall plan.
I completely agree. Hussein would really like to have the BP completely unarmed and handing out fraudulent voting pamphlets from the DEM party.
Yes, it seems beyond accidentally bad...
How many of these armorers have ever run a rifle to failure? How many of the deadlined rifles have been tested to see if they actually fail? :rolleyes2
mastiffhound
10-27-14, 17:16
Can they use personal rifles? If it were me, no damn way am I going without a rifle with all the POS drug runners and dealers flowing over our border on a daily basis. It's unfortunate that you'd have to do such a thing but the lazy a$$holes on welfare and border jumpers need extra money with Halloween right around the corner don't you know. I'd also be buying up my own ammo even though that's also ridiculous. It's sickening that these men and women are expected to patrol and protect our borders while under equipped.
Absolutely no personal weapons or non issue ammunition. I suppose.you could buy the speer or the newer issue federal ammo yourself and no one would be the wiser, but definitely nothing other than that.
The money spend by the current POTUS in one month of his "let's keep 'em here and feed 'em plan" would probably fix most if not all of these issues. BP needs to get a clue and have personnel in their individual sectors trained to fix these issues. If a phuking private in the military can work on weapons, so can I BP agent.
There are so many way to fix these problems but the money is being blown elsewhere.
Um, we do. Just can't fix 'em, have to send 'em out. There is plenty of money, just too much in taxpayer's pockets... they're working on that!
I'm sorry, can you be more specific?
Um, we do. Just can't fix 'em, have to send 'em out. There is plenty of money, just too much in taxpayer's pockets... they're working on that!
Tango_Unit
11-01-14, 00:10
All of the deadlined rifles were standard Colt M4's. Most of the rifles were deadlined due to "bent barrels" according to the inspectors. They dropped a little rod down the barrel and it wouldn't pass all the way through. These were labeled "no-go" and were thrown in a giant barrel, probably never to be seen again. Most of the rifles were under five years old and all had recently passed a qualification. Don't know how BP Agents can kill rifles that fast, but one thing they are definitely good at is breaking stuff.
As I stated elsewhere, the devil is in the details and I would be surprised if the barrels were truly bent. Common sense should have prevailed and a random sample of those weapons that failed should have been taken the range to see if they zero.
All of the deadlined rifles were standard Colt M4's. Most of the rifles were deadlined due to "bent barrels" according to the inspectors. They dropped a little rod down the barrel and it wouldn't pass all the way through. These were labeled "no-go" and were thrown in a giant barrel, probably never to be seen again. Most of the rifles were under five years old and all had recently passed a qualification. Don't know how BP Agents can kill rifles that fast, but one thing they are definitely good at is breaking stuff.
Being a Fed. Gov. Employee same as Mil.... No Private owned weapons or ammo. If I was allowed to I would carry and use TAP or even 193 in rifle not 855 green tip, much less I'd rather use my own rifle consistent trigger unlike the A2 trigger group.
To the point my Duty rifle is deadlined due to lose barrel nut/ barrel. The worst part is it I have to turn in after shift and draw out before. About 6 months ago when I drew it out I found the barrel lose and reported it. My guess is a Someone had changed my rifle upper from a different rifle. There is contract maintainers to repair and inspection of weapons so I'm not allowed to repair it.
Having just a little insight into what they're up against down there, 24/7--God help them...and us.
CBP management sold their souls long ago.
batman4706
11-01-14, 10:00
Having just a little insight into what they're up against down there, 24/7--God help them...and us.
CBP management sold their souls long ago.
They should issue them some of the surplus M-16s that we give everyone else. These guys need some full auto weapons down on the border.
Local PD's can get them.
They are M4A1's, with the happy switch...at least everyone I've ever used. I've heard there are some 3 round burst and semi's in the inventory but I've never seen one.
Horned Toad
11-01-14, 18:36
They should issue them some of the surplus M-16s that we give everyone else. These guys need some full auto weapons down on the border.
Local PD's can get them.
When a stateside LEO is responsible for every round that comes out of the barrel, lets not give them full auto. A high quality personally owned semi auto rifle is more than adequate and something that could be taken home and shot off duty.
SeriousStudent
11-02-14, 00:25
When a stateside LEO is responsible for every round that comes out of the barrel, lets not give them full auto. A high quality personally owned semi auto rifle is more than adequate and something that could be taken home and shot off duty.
I understand what you are saying. But I keep thinking about where these agents are stationed, and their potential adversaries.
They are not on the set of Mayberry RFD, a lot of them are in very remote locations with backup a long way off. Add in Mexican drug cartels or Mexican military troops, and I keep thinking I'd prefer to have the option of a group therapy switch.
And I say this as someone living in a large city where they issue cops a Colt 6933 SBR.
I don't think an M4A1 is a bad choice for them at all.
I hope they get their deadlined weapons repaired soon. I'd also prefer we gave everyone one of them an issue weapon, rather than passing them out to some of our "friends" overseas. But that's honestly drifting this thread off course.
ETA - and nothing in my post should be read as a criticism of the men and women in the Border Patrol. I just keep thinking about the rules they have to follow on use of force, and it flat out baffles me. I have read so many accounts of them getting shot at by bad guys, or stand-offs with Mexican military vehicles that cross the border. Add in the murder of Brian Terry, and it makes me even more angry.
I just wish they had any and all tools they need. It just makes me sad and frustrated, and has me shaking my head. They have a nearly impossible job, and I feel they get nowhere near the support they deserve from the politicians in Washington.
Every time I think about it, a rant starts coming out - sigh. :(
There are so many way to fix these problems but the money is being blown elsewhere.
This nails it - and the worst part is that the only thing a big enough taxpayer furor would do about it is install yet another permanent middle management bureaucracy that saps even more money.
When a stateside LEO is responsible for every round that comes out of the barrel, lets not give them full auto. A high quality personally owned semi auto rifle is more than adequate and something that could be taken home and shot off duty.
Wait, we can give rouge nations that hate us billions of US dollars but we are concerned about our Law Enforcement Officers and Border Patrol who risk their lives daily in the defense of our citizens and country firing off a few extra bullets? WTF?
I've recently heard from a guy on the southern border that said he chooses to not carry a long gun at all, but not due to unavailability. I wouldn't make that choice myself, but after having many long conversations with southern BP, I get the distinct impression that the BP use of force rules are so stringent that, as a side effect, they are encouraging agents to avoid firearms for self defense completely. Even further damaging morale is that agents feel their superiors will not back them up if deadly force is employed. Many feel the opposite could occur. It is discouraging agents from keeping proper defense available, which as SeriousStudent pointed out, is especially dicey in remote locations. Sad indeed.
When a stateside LEO is responsible for every round that comes out of the barrel, lets not give them full auto. A high quality personally owned semi auto rifle is more than adequate and something that could be taken home and shot off duty.
Not to derail the thread, but everyone who uses a firearm is responsible for every round sent down the pipe. That is the standard for civilian, military, or active criminal, and whether firing a single shot, semi, burst or otherwise. Now, my opinion is that full auto firearms should have off-the-shelf availability as other firearms do now. All people should be given the choice to responsibly self regulate. Conversely, they can choose not to and the consequences that accompany.
I've recently heard from a guy on the southern border that said he chooses to not carry a long gun at all, but not due to unavailability. I wouldn't make that choice myself, but after having many long conversations with southern BP, I get the distinct impression that the BP use of force rules are so stringent that, as a side effect, they are encouraging agents to avoid firearms for self defense completely. Even further damaging morale is that agents feel their superiors will not back them up if deadly force is employed. Many feel the opposite could occur. It is discouraging agents from keeping proper defense available, which as SeriousStudent pointed out, is especially dicey in remote locations. Sad indeed.
This a thousand times over. The current administration has completely abandoned their responsibility to ensure the people they send out to do a job, actually have the authority, resources and support to complete the mission. It's unconscionable. :(
Horned Toad
11-02-14, 12:42
Not to derail the thread, but everyone who uses a firearm is responsible for every round sent down the pipe. That is the standard for civilian, military, or active criminal, and whether firing a single shot, semi, burst or otherwise. Now, my opinion is that full auto firearms should have off-the-shelf availability as other firearms do now. All people should be given the choice to responsibly self regulate. Conversely, they can choose not to and the consequences that accompany.
Given the current trend of law enforcement to over react and shoot the shit out of everything I would rather Agents got lots of practice rounds, high stress training and a assigned rifles. Unless an Agent is prior military, on a specialty unit, or lucky and gets a limited school slot, they shoot 240 rounds a year out of the M4A1, 10 rounds to zero and 50 rounds to qualify four times a year. Agents used to shoot full auto bursts during quals, but that has changed. Full auto is not going to suddenly transform an Agent with limited experience and training into a fearsome fighting machine. Thats not a slam on Agents, its just the way it is, and the motivated ones still go out and do their job.
SeriousStudent
11-02-14, 18:18
Given the current trend of law enforcement to over react and shoot the shit out of everything I would rather Agents got lots of practice rounds, high stress training and a assigned rifles. Unless an Agent is prior military, on a specialty unit, or lucky and gets a limited school slot, they shoot 240 rounds a year out of the M4A1, 10 rounds to zero and 50 rounds to qualify four times a year. Agents used to shoot full auto bursts during quals, but that has changed. Full auto is not going to suddenly transform an Agent with limited experience and training into a fearsome fighting machine. Thats not a slam on Agents, its just the way it is, and the motivated ones still go out and do their job.
Yup, I definitely follow you about increased opportunities to train, and more practice ammo. Bring them in on the clock, pay them to practice, and reward those who do well.
If it were some training about human resources or new comms equipment, would they train them on their own time and on their own dime? I bet not.
I sure do hope this gets resolved soon, and they are in my thoughts and prayers.
A good start would be to reappropriate all the new rifles and ammo that has gone to other BS agencies that shouldn't have them in the first place, and send them toward BP instead. I mean, USDA, NOAA, etc...really? The list goes on.
Apricotshot
11-03-14, 06:59
Full auto would be the last thing you'd need in a open country firefight with unknown amount of adversaries and limted ammunition.
As we say in Maine... Tough tellin' not knowin'.
Full auto would be the last thing you'd need in a open country firefight with unknown amount of adversaries and limted ammunition.
Moose-Knuckle
11-04-14, 16:32
They have to share rifles with other agents? What the hell is that about?
LOL, reminds me of the Red Army sending human waves against the Nazi Juggernaut armed with MG42's, STG-44s, etc. They would have two man groups run towards the enemy, poor bastard in front was given a single Mosin-Nagant and another poor bastard behind him with a few extra cartridges so he could pick up the soon to be dead guy's rifle and use it until he got cut down himself.
Doc Safari
11-10-14, 12:43
http://www.kvoa.com/news/n4t-investigators-border-patrol-taking-agents-rifles/
We learned that U.S. Customs and Border Protection's Offices of Border Patrol and Training and Development are inspecting the quality of agents' M4 carbines throughout Border Patrol sectors nationwide. But agents tell us, some of those M4s have not been replaced. And, we've learned, agents are required to share rifles amongst each other.
Del Cueto tells us that because some of those M4s have not been replaced, agents are pooling their weapons, which makes it difficult to personalize the settings on a rifle, such as the sights.
Prather believes removing some of the rifles maybe politically motivated. He says he was told that many of these guns are being removed for issues that are easily repaired like the firing pin and bolt.
He broke down a M4 as he spoke.
"This weapon is designed to be able to be in a battle situation, changed out rather quickly even so fast that modern weapons have areas to hold spare bolts," he said.
That makes him suspicious that the agency could be disarming its agents.
My take: Of course it's political. Duh.
EDITED TO ADD: OP, you should retitle this thread "Border Patrol: If you like your M4's you can keep your M4's" :jester:
Well, here is some perspective from a Border Patrol Agent:
First things first, from what I experienced I believe that a lot of the hype leading up to this was just that, hype. As I am currently assigned to the station's training unit as a firearms instructor I dealt with this directly and I was in the armory assisting in the inspection the entire time. The armor that I dealt with was knowledgeable and beyond professional. We took every opportunity to save rifles. We replaced firing pins, bolt carriers, buffers, buffer springs, and gas rings. The only thing that wasn't replaced was the actual bolt. There was no attempt to just get rid of guns with abandon.
Before we get into the meat of this, understand that a Patrol Agents work is fairly dynamic. BP aren't cops. Our mission is essentially a military one, but we are required to conduct ourselves in a traditional LEO fashion with similar ROEs and policies. You can be working the highways/checkpoints one min and then be at 9k feet tracking mules the next. For the most part we work in areas that are remote and in environments that are rugged and unforgiving. There is no question that we are hard on gear and even former jar heads are taken aback by how much we break shit. With that in mind onto the inspection.
My station has about 230(ish) agents and we did fairly well. We lost aprox half our Pool/pull rifles, all of our K9 semi autos (oldest ones in inventory), and about 6 issued rifles. Out of 137 rifles we lost 24 to the inspection. Please understand that pull rifles see the majority of use. Assigned rifles are typically only seeing aprox 200 rounds annually unless the agent gets to attend some special training. Pull rifles can see the range every day monday through friday and have upwards of 10k rounds (if my math is right) run through them in a year. With that information we can conclude two things. One, issued rifles are the way to go. Two, if there are not enough rifles for everyone, then stations need "Range" guns for agents who do not have assigned rifles.
For the most part we lost rifles for damaged bolts (cracked/chipped lugs) and firing pin holes (elongated/chipped). A few were due to loose/bent barrels and some other odd issues. Pretty good seeing as how the majority of rifles through out sector lost 40-50% of their inventory. As it goes in the government, no good deed goes unpunished. As of Monday we received word that we would be losing 36 additional rifles to be redistributed through out sector. While I'm not upset with or by the inspection, I am upset with the consequences of the results. ****ing unbelievable…
Annual inspection of equipment that is used by multiple agents is not necessarily a bad thing. I actual think that it is a good thing. Not having the logistic support available to support the potential consequences is not a good thing. What I mean is, if you are going to do something like this (i.e., conduct an arms inspection on weapons that have never been touched by an armor since they left the factory) then you better show up with weapons to replace the ones that are designated as deadlined.
Now that the deed is done, how can we get back to be where we need to be or even better where we should be? I suppose that is the million dollar question. My suggestion is to allow agents to self purchase rifles, have them entered into the inventory, and housed in the armory with annual armor inspections. From my perspective that would be the best solution. The agents that truly want/need the rifle will purchase their rifle and in turn will take care of them. Now I know that is wishful thinking, and will not happen. The only other option I see is for the agency to procure more carbines and have them divided up amongst the stations. What ever they do, they need to do it ASAP. Between the loss of our carbines and the lack of practice ammo things are starting to get a little serious.
While you or I would not hesitate to shove a new bolt into a carrier, gauge it and drive on, that isn't the way the .gov rolls. I would imagine it has to go up an echelon of maintenance.
Well, here is some perspective from a Border Patrol Agent:
...
While you or I would not hesitate to shove a new bolt into a carrier, gauge it and drive on, that isn't the way the .gov rolls. I would imagine it has to go up an echelon of maintenance.
DISCLAIMER: I am not questioning what you are saying or trying to give you a hard time, so please don't take it that way. I just want to point out some screwy things I've been hearing, (former) red shirt to red shirt.
I'm hearing that some of the guns being deadlined are newer rifles with less than 1000 rounds through them. Some guns pass inspection one day and get inspected again and fail. I REALLY would like to see the reasoning for those rifles getting trashed. Assuming no extreme misuse, I'm just not aware of many things you can do to a Colt within 1000 rounds that would cause it to be irreparably damaged. The ONLY possibility I can come up with is that the vehicle rifle racks combined with off-roading are somehow damaging/bending barrels. Meanwhile there are guys walking around with P2Ks with 2x the service life round count that can't get replacements. Something with this whole deal is screwy, especially considering a lot of stations were short on rifles to begin with.
Also, I'm not aware of many rifles getting 10k rounds a year through them, especially at a station that small with that many rifles. You should be running less than 55k rounds a year to qual the whole station. So, no more than six rifles should be getting that sort of round count. You should be averaging 400ish rounds a year per rifle. Hardly high round count. Assuming a consistent rifle to agent ratio over the years, even 20 year old rifles should have (on average) less than 10k rounds. I understand that the pool rifles are going to see more quals, but there should not be anywhere near 10k rounds a year through them unless they are dedicated range rifles. Even running carbine classes should not be putting that high of a round count on the guns.
That being said, the preventative maintenance and repair done on BP rifles is atrocious, especially considering the conditions they are used in. This could be resolved for a relatively low cost without leaving stations short on rifles. Maybe this whole thing is just the culmination of years of neglect. I'm just very concerned by the standards that are being used to decimate the armories, when there are guys out working the line that NEED rifles. I respect that you tried to keep them from needlessly deadlining rifles. You guys still lost almost 18% of your guns. Some stations are losing more than 40%. This is simply not sustainable and I'm not hearing much about replacing the rifles or anything about improving maintenance standards.
EDIT: I also agree that the solution is a personally owned weapon program. Keep it simple. Colt 6920s with only drop in aftermarket parts (nothing that takes a tool to replace) allowed. Agents could add drop in rails, stocks, lights, slings, authorized optics, iron sights, etc. Everything else has to be stock Colt. Make them have quarterly inspections along with the Service rifles (which need to be inspected too). No need to keep the guns in the Station. Agents should be trusted with a rifle they can legally have at home otherwise and should have it available to defend themselves and their families.
Horned Toad
11-11-14, 21:00
DISCLAIMER: I am not questioning what you are saying or trying to give you a hard time, so please don't take it that way. I just want to point out some screwy things I've been hearing, (former) red shirt to red shirt.
I'm hearing that some of the guns being deadlined are newer rifles with less than 1000 rounds through them. Some guns pass inspection one day and get inspected again and fail. I REALLY would like to see the reasoning for those rifles getting trashed. Assuming no extreme misuse, I'm just not aware of many things you can do to a Colt within 1000 rounds that would cause it to be irreparably damaged. The ONLY possibility I can come up with is that the vehicle rifle racks combined with off-roading are somehow damaging/bending barrels. Meanwhile there are guys walking around with P2Ks with 2x the service life round count that can't get replacements. Something with this whole deal is screwy, especially considering a lot of stations were short on rifles to begin with.
Also, I'm not aware of many rifles getting 10k rounds a year through them, especially at a station that small with that many rifles. You should be running less than 55k rounds a year to qual the whole station. So, no more than six rifles should be getting that sort of round count. You should be averaging 400ish rounds a year per rifle. Hardly high round count. Assuming a consistent rifle to agent ratio over the years, even 20 year old rifles should have (on average) less than 10k rounds. I understand that the pool rifles are going to see more quals, but there should not be anywhere near 10k rounds a year through them unless they are dedicated range rifles. Even running carbine classes should not be putting that high of a round count on the guns.
That being said, the preventative maintenance and repair done on BP rifles is atrocious, especially considering the conditions they are used in. This could be resolved for a relatively low cost without leaving stations short on rifles. Maybe this whole thing is just the culmination of years of neglect. I'm just very concerned by the standards that are being used to decimate the armories, when there are guys out working the line that NEED rifles. I respect that you tried to keep them from needlessly deadlining rifles. You guys still lost almost 18% of your guns. Some stations are losing more than 40%. This is simply not sustainable and I'm not hearing much about replacing the rifles or anything about improving maintenance standards.
EDIT: I also agree that the solution is a personally owned weapon program. Keep it simple. Colt 6920s with only drop in aftermarket parts (nothing that takes a tool to replace) allowed. Agents could add drop in rails, stocks, lights, slings, authorized optics, iron sights, etc. Everything else has to be stock Colt. Make them have quarterly inspections along with the Service rifles (which need to be inspected too). No need to keep the guns in the Station. Agents should be trusted with a rifle they can legally have at home otherwise and should have it available to defend themselves and their families.
I’m familiar with the Agent who wrote the above info. His numbers may be a bit off on the round count total for the M4s but overall for that location he is spot on.
The question is why now was there an inspection. There has never been a M4 inspection modern Agent history. Not saying it’s a bad thing.
How come they did a whole sector at one time?
How come an outfit as big as the BP had no immediate plan to replace rifles?
Two main rumors are going around
One is Harpers Ferry want to be some sort of depot for all the firearms stuff. If you are a redshirt you should know empire building is a huge problem in the BP and it is the Agent in the field that loses out. How is one location going to do maintenance on that number of rifles
Other rumor is someone wants to get a PDW and has to justify the purchase. So at a time when the BP was looking at 308s, they might now get stuck with an 11”SBR. Its about equivalent to when someone whispered in Harry Ruffles ear that some women can shoot a shotgun with pistol grip better than a regular shotgun, so the entire patrol got pistol grip shotguns and all the Wilson/Scattergun Technologies 870s disappeared.
On the P2000 there are still at least 8k in inventory so getting a replacement shouldn't be a problem.
I just want to be clear about something. Am I to understand that they have never done inspections, or had an inspection process set up in the past and then they go out and inspect a whole bunch of weapons at once? Does that sum it up?
If that is the case, then those to blame are the ones who manage the USBP firearms policy. The M4 is not a complicated weapon to maintain. All that needs to happen is for someone to give up their fiefdom and have personnel in place at the local level (like unit armorer's with teeth) to conduct inspection and make repairs. If the military can manage hundreds of thousands of weapons, I am certain that the Border Patrol can do it also, if they want.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn there is more behind this.
I’m familiar with the Agent who wrote the above info. His numbers may be a bit off on the round count total for the M4s but overall for that location he is spot on.
The question is why now was there an inspection. There has never been a M4 inspection modern Agent history. Not saying it’s a bad thing.
How come they did a whole sector at one time?
How come an outfit as big as the BP had no immediate plan to replace rifles?
Two main rumors are going around
One is Harpers Ferry want to be some sort of depot for all the firearms stuff. If you are a redshirt you should know empire building is a huge problem in the BP and it is the Agent in the field that loses out. How is one location going to do maintenance on that number of rifles
Other rumor is someone wants to get a PDW and has to justify the purchase. So at a time when the BP was looking at 308s, they might now get stuck with an 11”SBR. Its about equivalent to when someone whispered in Harry Ruffles ear that some women can shoot a shotgun with pistol grip better than a regular shotgun, so the entire patrol got pistol grip shotguns and all the Wilson/Scattergun Technologies 870s disappeared.
On the P2000 there are still at least 8k in inventory so getting a replacement shouldn't be a problem.
The post 26inf made were my words from LF.
Mechelaar... My hasty math might have been a bit off. I based my calculation off one rifle being checked out every day with 50 rounds fired, 5 times a week for four weeks a month, and 10 months out of the year (50x5 = 250, 250x4 = 1000, 1000x10 = 10000). In retrospect that isn't exactly accurate (although it has the potential to be).
Since I don't have the data right in front of me lets say that out of the 137 rifles we had, 110 of them were assigned rifles and that 25 were pull (2 were already deadlined for loose barrels). Obviously the assigned rifles are only going to see the 200 rounds a year. Barring physical damage or internal/manufacturing defects those guns will last a very long time.
Moving onto the pull guns. Lets assume that all the pull guns at our station are fairly rotated through the quals and each rifle is only seeing 1000 rounds per year (rounding up of course and using the modified 50 round qual). If that were the case, then yes it would take about 10 years to hit the 10k mark. With that said, you and I both know that isn't true. I guarantee that some rifles are seeing more then their fair share of love. Say for instance that all the guys check out 1-10 and 1-10 only. Why? Let's say that they are closest to the door and easiest to get too (pretty typical in this outfit, right?) and that 10-20 are always checked out by agents on shift. That means that 1000 rounds a year just jumped to 2400 rounds a year and in 5 years we are at the 10k mark on those ten rifles. In reality there are no real numbers because there aren't any records. With out information we can only guess and personally I will always estimate high and assume the worse.
As far as damaging a (young/newish) rifle to the point of deadlining it, that shit happens. Agents are like bunch of drunken monkeys when it comes to gear and equipment. You already know this. A bent barrel and or similar is not hard to fathom given the environment, deployment, and various mods of transportation utilized by a PAs. I don't know what to tell you about the P2Ks. At this station, if Agents break them then they are replaced with out question. Horned Toads estimation of on hand P2Ks is probably pretty low. From what I've been told, we will have H&Ks long into the future just based off of current inventory. If your station is having issues getting them or issuing them out then you need to address that.
The inspection wasn't a bad thing and its something that needs to happen on a continual basis. The only bad thing about this is that there wasn't a contingency plan in place before the inspection was initiated. THAT is the problem, not the inspection. We knew we were going to lose guns, and yet we failed to prepare for it. Everyone has the right to pontificate about the inspection and its results, but we need to remember that not all of us are armorers. The difference between even a knowledgable enduser and a basic armorer can be pretty substantial. I truly feel that people are missing the point on this. Weapons are machines and machines need maintenance. Even with regular maintenance, a machine will eventually wear out and need to be replaced. Think of these rifles as vehicles. Vehicles require a certain amount of maintenance. Sure a truck can go several thousand miles beyond the recommended oil change, but do you really want to do that? If we (the Border Patrol) have such a strict adherence to our vehicles, then why would we treat our weapon systems any differently? We have mechanics to insure that we are good to on the road, so why the heck don't we have armorers or at the very least a maintenance schedule in place for our weapons? Laziness and incompetence pure and simple.
Rant aside, we need to start coming up with solutions and fast. Rifles are essential pieces of equipment. Its not like they're a PRD or some other sort of rubbish that doesn't matter. They really are necessary and its not ok to send Agents out into the field without a rifle. I think many of use see the same solutions to this dilema. If I had it my way I'd immediately authorize agents to purchase rifles from XXXX and YYYYYY companies in 3 configurations. An 18", a 14.5 (mid length of course), and a 11.5 (with proper ATF paperwork as it wouldn't be an agency purchase). The justification for having them available for self defense off duty has already been made here http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/06/suspected-gunman-in-border-patrol-agent-murder-has-ties-to-gulf-cartel-sources-say. I would follow the authorization for self purchase with the hiring of armorers and implementation of a maintenance/replacement schedule. Pull weapon numbers would be reduced (to encourage self purchase) and Range/Training weapons would be designated with a rotation established. Of course, the union would get involved and totally **** that shit all up.
In the end, I wouldn't be surprised any one of the conspiracies were true. Honestly though, I don't think its anything more then our agency's legendary ineptitude. I think that it was simply some ass hat in an office up in DC who got the idea in his head that this thing needed to happen. Said ass hat had the power to make it so or knew the people that did. Either way, what's been done has been done and there is no going backwards. We need to realize that the issue has little to do with the inspection and more to do with the fact that there never has been an inspection until now and the that there never have been enough rifles for everyone. Availability and maintainability are the only two things that we need to be concerned with from this point forward.
sixtop,
I don't think anyone (at least not me) is failing to understand that they are "machines" and need maintenance. In fact, most here would agree with that. What is surprising is that it is my understanding that no maintenance plan had been put in place previously. That means that those in charge of the firearms program who ordered the inspections are either complete idiots or naive to think that they were going to just walk in and everything was going to be all roses.
The Border Patrol wasn't founded last year or the last decade. It's been around for a long time. So how was this type of stuff handled all the previous years? How hard is it to find BP agents to train at unit level type armorers or hire civilian employees or even contract personnel to do this?
Hell I have a plan right now. It's called the "Vets to Work Border Patrol Initiative". Put out a bulletin looking for qualified weapons guys, provide them some training and tools, and put them to work.
Horned Toad
11-12-14, 06:34
I just want to be clear about something. Am I to understand that they have never done inspections, or had an inspection process set up in the past and then they go out and inspect a whole bunch of weapons at once? Does that sum it up?
15+ years multiple locations , no know inspection process.
Good info, guys. I appreciate it. I jumped ship a while back, so my info is all second hand. You know how the BP rumor mill goes. As crazy as the stories are on the inside, once they get out they are even worse. What you guys are saying puts my mind at ease a bit. I still have a problem with them suddenly busting out inspections with no real plans in place to fix the issue, but, hey, it is the G. Hanlon's razor and all that.
Iraqgunz, I've been bitching for years about a lack of a maintenance program. You have to understand that each BP station runs fairly independently. While one may have a good, proactive primary firearms instructor (PFI), the next may have a worthless admin slug. From what I understand (and either of the current BP guys can correct me) all major maintenance/repairs on the rifles is supposed to be done at the national level. The station armorers are very limited on what they are officially allowed to do to the rifles. So if you have a PFI that's more worried about his inventory and numbers, a broken gun may sit on the rack for years with a "do not issue" tag because sending it in for repair could potentially screw up some sort of numbers. Some stations do have off the books weapons repair and maintenance, but guys are having to stick their necks out a bit to keep the guns running.
As far as the P2Ks, broken ones were always replaced, although not necessarily in a timely manner. I had a guy whose pistol broke on the range on a Friday. I called the PFI and he wanted me to wait until Monday to replace it. **** that. The high round count ones are more of a concern. The general response I got when I mentioned agents needing new pistols due to round count is to wait until the gun breaks. YMMV.
Averageman
11-12-14, 08:36
As I stated elsewhere, the devil is in the details and I would be surprised if the barrels were truly bent. Common sense should have prevailed and a random sample of those weapons that failed should have been taken the range to see if they zero.
It has been my experiance that a dirty barrel will gauge bent if not immeadiatly cleaned before inspection.
skijunkie55
11-12-14, 11:46
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/12/border-patrol-agents-say-agencys-gun-recall-puts-them-in-danger/
Prather, who used the M4 throughout his law-enforcement career, said the weapon is “very robust” and that any issues found in the Border Patrol inspections are likely simple fixes.
“All you need to do is pull out the old firing pin and put in the new one and the rifle is ready to go,” he said.
Bitiello said that may be the case, but the work must be done by a specialist.
“It may be easy to replace a firing pin, but these are things that should be done by a professional,” he said.
So according to the Deputy Chief of BP, someone trained in the use of a particular firearms is not qualified to do simple routine maintenance? Strip, clean, re-assemble...
Averageman
11-12-14, 11:52
So why not take a mobile team from an Army Depot and go out and do all the repairs on site and then give classes at the same time to avoid this in the future?
So why not take a mobile team from an Army Depot and go out and do all the repairs on site and then give classes at the same time to avoid this in the future?
That would put the power of knowledge in the field. Some in .gov are allergic to that concept. :rolleyes:
Yep, which is why I stated previously and per the TM that all weapons are supposed to be thoroughly cleaned prior to an inspection. Which then begs the question as to whether that happened.
But, as we have also heard from Horned Toad these weapons have apparently not been checked/inspected in 15+ years and people are surprised at failures.
It has been my experiance that a dirty barrel will gauge bent if not immeadiatly cleaned before inspection.
If the reference is to the firing pin, as I recall you are supposed to conduct a firing pin protrusion test when you replace it. I have also heard that some of the firing pin holes were also elongated (out of spec) which is why there is a plug gage for that and a test.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/12/border-patrol-agents-say-agencys-gun-recall-puts-them-in-danger/
Prather, who used the M4 throughout his law-enforcement career, said the weapon is “very robust” and that any issues found in the Border Patrol inspections are likely simple fixes.
“All you need to do is pull out the old firing pin and put in the new one and the rifle is ready to go,” he said.
Bitiello said that may be the case, but the work must be done by a specialist.
“It may be easy to replace a firing pin, but these are things that should be done by a professional,” he said.
So according to the Deputy Chief of BP, someone trained in the use of a particular firearms is not qualified to do simple routine maintenance? Strip, clean, re-assemble...
There is an adage a very wise man once said: "Blessed are the flexible for they shall not be broken." The glaring lack of flexibility within the gigantic bloated behemoth that is our bureaucracy has gone well beyond being described as concerning. Even the simplest problem resolution seems so difficult to achieve. One can almost hear it cracking.
So why not take a mobile team from an Army Depot and go out and do all the repairs on site and then give classes at the same time to avoid this in the future?
A lot of this is going to be unsurprising to those exposed to bureaucracy.
Article here:
http://www.gunnuts.net/2014/10/24/us-border-patrol-deadlining-rifles-at-a-rate-that-is-detrimental-to-officer-safety/
Some snippets:
Yikes.
Apparently more to come
i wonder what they use the dmr rifles for. i don't think they'd give them to regular pas. they're probably for the bortac guys, but then what do the bortac guys do with them?
The timing cannot be any worse. Suddenly a large number of an important piece of equipment is suddenly dead lined and pulled off the line. Just when the CinC is threatening to open the door to uncontrolled immigration. How many of those potential illegals are just waiting for such an opening and are NOT friendly to America or Americans and not to just the Border Police. Call me very suspicious and skeptical. Plus, the whole process implies the guys and girls carrying these rifles are incapable of maintaining them and keeping them in a ready condition. Very embarrassing. Not for the line duty Officers but for the leadership that apparently cannot trust the Officers to use good judgment about their equipment and it's maintenance or failing to give guidance on maintaining the rifles readiness. I'm very skeptical about the motivation at this time. kwg
Averageman
11-12-14, 21:59
The timing cannot be any worse. Suddenly a large number of an important piece of equipment is suddenly dead lined and pulled off the line. Just when the CinC is threatening to open the door to uncontrolled immigration. How many of those potential illegals are just waiting for such an opening and are NOT friendly to America or Americans and not to just the Border Police. Call me very suspicious and skeptical. Plus, the whole process implies the guys and girls carrying these rifles are incapable of maintaining them and keeping them in a ready condition. Very embarrassing. Not for the line duty Officers but for the leadership that apparently cannot trust the Officers to use good judgment about their equipment and it's maintenance or failing to give guidance on maintaining the rifles readiness. I'm very skeptical about the motivation at this time. kwg
I had to show this thread to a retired W3 Armament Tech, that vein in his forehead began to throb and his left eye start twitching before I had to cut him off.
There is no excuse for this, it's simply a failure of Leadership.
News flash. Our men and women overseas weren't trusted with loaded weapons on military bases and your average military member is still prohibited from doing anything more than basic disassembly and cleaning.
Unit level armorers can do virtually nothing and most all weapons repairs are done by Small Arms Repairmen, CATM's and Gunner's Mates.
The timing cannot be any worse. Suddenly a large number of an important piece of equipment is suddenly dead lined and pulled off the line. Just when the CinC is threatening to open the door to uncontrolled immigration. How many of those potential illegals are just waiting for such an opening and are NOT friendly to America or Americans and not to just the Border Police. Call me very suspicious and skeptical. Plus, the whole process implies the guys and girls carrying these rifles are incapable of maintaining them and keeping them in a ready condition. Very embarrassing. Not for the line duty Officers but for the leadership that apparently cannot trust the Officers to use good judgment about their equipment and it's maintenance or failing to give guidance on maintaining the rifles readiness. I'm very skeptical about the motivation at this time. kwg
The US Air Force is pretty paranoid about small arms of any kind. I kind of think that they'd like to get rid of every rifle, pistol, and shotgun in inventory if they could get away with it.
DarkTemplars
11-13-14, 05:57
The US Air Force is pretty paranoid about small arms of any kind. I kind of think that they'd like to get rid of every rifle, pistol, and shotgun in inventory if they could get away with it.
I wouldn't go that far. I remember when I would deploy to sand land and never even have a weapon issued (aircraft maintainer) and the last several years now, everyone not only has one issued but carries it on a daily basis in sand land.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
News flash. Our men and women overseas weren't trusted with loaded weapons on military bases and your average military member is still prohibited from doing anything more than basic disassembly and cleaning.
Unit level armorers can do virtually nothing and most all weapons repairs are done by Small Arms Repairmen, CATM's and Gunner's Mates.
Who wasn't or isn't allowed loaded weapons on base?
Depends on theater. OIF and OEF were managed differently. The most restrictive OEF FOBs I went to only required condition "yellow" or magazine in, empty chamber. Many of the smaller FOBs/COPs/FBs were condition "red" due to the threat level. OIF is where the clearing barrel and unloaded weapons was the name of the game in many places.
Rick
Who wasn't or isn't allowed loaded weapons on base?
NKC, Bagram, Kandahar, NKAIA, and all the Green Zone, if I recall correctly in the '11-'12 timeframe, required magazine out but on your person.
NKC, Bagram, Kandahar, NKAIA, and all the Green Zone, if I recall correctly in the '11-'12 timeframe, required magazine out but on your person.
This is my experience as well.
As well as the obvious CONUS restrictions.
This is my experience as well.
As well as the obvious CONUS restrictions.
Yeah. CONUS, only MPs and the equivalent (USAF Sec Fo, federal agents like CID/AFOSI/NCIS, etc) have weapons every day. Everyone else checks them out on an as-needed basis, like exercises, training, qual, etc.
Concealed carry (besides federal agents) isn't allowed on bases, regardless of state law. I'm not even sure I trust the current training of the military in general to arm every single one all the time. We could get there for sure, but right now, without being combat arms or having a combat tour, I would fear an ND on a weekly basis.
Averageman
11-16-14, 16:10
News flash. Our men and women overseas weren't trusted with loaded weapons on military bases and your average military member is still prohibited from doing anything more than basic disassembly and cleaning.
Unit level armorers can do virtually nothing and most all weapons repairs are done by Small Arms Repairmen, CATM's and Gunner's Mates.
There was a time when the arms room had a foot locker full of small arms parts and a Armorer could sit in a cold and dreary basement arms room some where in the bowels of a WWII barracks and mess with M16's and 1911's all day until he had a Companies worth of weapons in excellent condition.
No small part of what is happening here is because we have been taught to fear rather than enjoy guns and working on them.
Basic mechanical stuff isn't magic, it's just basic mechanical stuff. You treat it right, respect it and perform the maintenance. Limiting the exposure of the end user to the maintenance only makes the problem worse.
I can only hope that the BP agents learn a lesson from this and vote accordingly.
Almost every base I was at or ventured to in the 5 years I was in Iraq was this way. When I was in Afghanistan with a few exceptions this was the norm until the increase of attacks against U.S/Allied personnel.
Who wasn't or isn't allowed loaded weapons on base?
15+ years multiple locations , no know inspection process.
Got me by a long shot but I was going to say in my six years and change at the same small station I have never known nor heard of an inspection process. I have also worked in the firearms department merely as a RSO and can confirm that simple repairs cannot be done in house by red shirts and must be sent off. The guys we had were good shooters and genuine firearms enthusiasts. We had debates on how to assign the rifles that we had and the importance of keeping the settings and configurations agent specific. Sometimes the duty supervisor would hand out rifles to agents they were not assigned to. I'm not mentioning this in detriment to them, often there weren't enough rifles to hand out so assigned rifles were issued so the agent going on shift wouldn't have to go without.
The ammo issue was and is a major concern despite the media outrage over the DHS supply. For the longest time now, qualifications are done with pool rifles without allowing the agents to zero the rifles prior to shooting for score due to lack of ammo. Scoring is modified by group on an area of the target rather than five ring/center specific. Neither additional training nor advanced training is allotted for due to the same reasons. For a brief period, a basic carbine course was run but S&W and Colt .22LR carbines were used for 95% of the shooting. Of these two, I would say the S&W rifles performed much better but neither ran well enough to be put through the paces. IIRC, we had only six rifles to use from Mon-Fri in classes of about 10-12 agents per day.
We used to receive several boxes of .40S&W after going through a qual but due to the shortage, agents would only receive a zip lock baggie of I think <50 rounds. Now, I cannot even remember when we even received baggies. Unless something has changed with the policy, IIRC, no non issued ammo is to be used through our service pistols, even if it is factory ammo. Reloads were certainly prohibited. How strictly this is followed by the agents who actually want to shoot, practice, improve, or maintain proficiency I will not say.
Unlike the military, long arms are not treated as primary weapons in LE. They are available upon request while on duty but it is the pistol that we have on our belts all the time. We cannot take neither rifles nor shotguns home. I think because of this the P2Ks are treated differently when it comes to surplus. When my pistol broke (trigger spring), they gave me a new one same day. Another agent I know broke his while on annual leave out of state and the nearest station gave him one (so he claims).
HackerF15E
11-16-14, 18:05
NKC, Bagram, Kandahar, NKAIA, and all the Green Zone, if I recall correctly in the '11-'12 timeframe, required magazine out but on your person.
Changes depending on the whims of leadership. When I was at BAF in '07 and '09, loaded magazines in weapons. In '11, mag out.
Even when I was in the Army in Germany, the unit armorer (who was a grunt assigned to the HQ platoon) was not allowed to make weapons repairs. He conducted inspections and checked the 2404. If there was a deadline status he notified the support unit.
At some point they would also come around a do an inspection/gaging of weapons.
The bigger issue is lack of training and not providing the tools and parts for personnel to do the work. When I was in the USCG parts were controlled very tightly at the servicing armories and we were the only ones allowed to make repairs. All parts were inventories and accounted for regularly.
There was a time when the arms room had a foot locker full of small arms parts and a Armorer could sit in a cold and dreary basement arms room some where in the bowels of a WWII barracks and mess with M16's and 1911's all day until he had a Companies worth of weapons in excellent condition.
No small part of what is happening here is because we have been taught to fear rather than enjoy guns and working on them.
Basic mechanical stuff isn't magic, it's just basic mechanical stuff. You treat it right, respect it and perform the maintenance. Limiting the exposure of the end user to the maintenance only makes the problem worse.
I can only hope that the BP agents learn a lesson from this and vote accordingly.
The bigger issue is lack of training and not providing the tools and parts for personnel to do the work.
Exactly - basic mechanical systems are simple, but from an organizational perspective it's actually challenging to do even simple things like track round counts and small parts wear setups; as helpful as it could be to empower the end user with some maintenance tasks, DHS and BP's numbers requirements over the last decade virtually ensure that they'll have plenty examples of a universe's uprated gorilla in case anybody on the leadership end tried to roll out a gorilla-proofed end user maintenance scheme. The real answer is that the few people in the armory community there were never empowered with the capability to proactively do enough, or deliberately underfunded [more likely relied on next year's fiscal outlay by some now-retired bean counter for year after year] to buy other stuff and nobody was in the right spot administratively to make a common sense evaluation that kicking the can any further would become more expensive quickly.
The training/trainiers and information for this stuff is out there, DHS should have the resources to run train-the-trainers type stuff to have the expertise dispersed enough to handle it, the rest if just being able to GOTS/COTS acquire enough of the hardware to actually keep up with the stuff (again easy and comparably affordable) but none of the leadership is even making a concerted push to make that happen.
AZ-Renegade
11-17-14, 11:27
For a while, USBP was moving in the right direction regarding firearms training. Extra ammo was available for practice and quarterly training and there was a push from Harpers Ferry to get a 1:1 ratio of long arms to agent at each station. At the academy, trainees were required to carry red gun M4s wherever they went on campus to emphasize the M4 as the primary weapon for agents in the field. They even sent several red shirts to a train-the-trainer carbine course with BORTAC that Mike Pannone came up with for our BORTAC instructors.
When I started as the Primary Firearms Instructor at my station we had approximately 130 rifles assigned and we had maintained that number for over 6 years. At one point I was given 50 M4s NIB from sector HQ and another 25 or so later on so the push was not an imaginary one.
Unfortunately, around late 2011 we started feeling cuts in our budget. Firearms training outside the station level became almost non existent, and station level training was limited due to reductions in ammunition and range supplies.
Perhaps had budgetary issues not gutted our firearms program along with the growing focus on the carbine as the primary weapon, some kind of maintenance schedule may have been finally implemented, although I'm not sure the difference of 2-3 years would have changed the outcome all that much. I witnessed first hand the inspection process at our station and the majority of our rifles that were pulled were at least 10 years old and had gone that entire time without a maintenance program outside of basic cleaning and "routine" inspection.
I'm sorry, can you be more specific?
I meant, we have guys who are trained to work on weapons. They aren't allowed to do much beyond sending them to Harpers Ferry, since spare parts are not, or are rarely, available.
The remark about plenty of money was me being a smart ass. Other PAs have already said it all, better than I could.
Sorry for the late response.
This issue is getting renewed traction.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/03/border-patrol-agents-say-gun-sharing-puts-lives-at-risk/
Border Patrol agents say gun sharing puts lives at risk
By Maxim LottPublished February 03, 2015FoxNews.com
Guns are in such short supply at the Border Patrol that one agent told FoxNews.com 400 agents share just 100 rifles at his station.
The lack of weapons is more than just a nuisance, according to law enforcement authorities, who say each agent should be able to calibrate his or her gun to individual preferences, a process they call "zeroing."
“We are left to check out rifles that were unzeroed to us," a border patrol agent told FoxNews.com. "This practice needs to be outlawed, as it could cost someone their life."
Balance of article at link above.
Every field agent should be issued there OWN rifle. Sharing a rifle with 3-4 other agents is just not good practice...
Who knows how far off the zeros are on some of those.
Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2
They could start with not dumping so much money into extraneous stages of their hiring process. Then buy rifles.
As I stated before, it's a simple fix. There are multiple ways to solve this and they only require money and will. The bullshit about not allowing agents to carry personally purchased carbines is just that. It's real simple. Give the agents a list of 1-3 proven carbines that can be used. Weapons must be configured just like the issued weapons as far as optics, etc...
All rifles get inspected by the appropriate personnel and all personnel must qualify with that weapon. Info is recorded on their qualification sheet.
It's funny how they can find money to feed and house illegals, and not provide weapons to those protecting the United States.
It's funny how they can find money to feed and house illegals, and not provide weapons to those protecting the United States.
Adroitly stated! :cool:
Terrible Tim
02-04-15, 07:01
They spend mega-millions on new technology, towers, radar & toys, but have missed the boat on something as simple as a weapon which works. The Feds, as usual, have their heads up their collective asses. SNAFU....
http://www.jrn.com/kgun9/news/New-border-surveillance-tower-goes-up-to-track-illegal-crossers-290738831.html
By they, I hope you mean congress or the fed gov as a whole and not USBP. Trust me, if they held the purse ztrings, they would have their weapons.
noonesshowmonkey
02-04-15, 07:24
As I stated before, it's a simple fix. There are multiple ways to solve this and they only require money and will. The bullshit about not allowing agents to carry personally purchased carbines is just that. It's real simple. Give the agents a list of 1-3 proven carbines that can be used. Weapons must be configured just like the issued weapons as far as optics, etc...
What so often passes for 'logical' at especially the local level, as you practically described to a letter the personal carbine policy (well, a more restrictive one than a lot of departments, actually), I guess is lost at the Federal. Too many chefs in the kitchen, I guess. The dispersion & diffusion of responsibility (ie disappearance) in huge organizations is kind of absurd to me.
I am certainly not against funding the legal immigration process, which process has been drastically underfunded in the face of overwhelming demand, just as Border Patrol has been. This is a Yes, And problem, rather than a rifle problem. The whole enchilada needs to be better funded, period. Then again, DHS is the brainchild of an insane GOP that can't figure out if it likes small government (given that DHS is a monstrosity) or hates funding government or quite what... Regardless, the obstructionism in Congress can barely fund a package of twinkies without first determining if the twinkies are American enough, secure or a threat to the United States, or otherwise worth shutting the government down over.
At the end of the day, though, you are very correct. Even further, it isn't like the AR-15 requires a PhD in rocketry to understand and maintain. That an individual posting has no individual given the task, much less qual'ed or at the very least vested with the capability, to perform basic maintenance that so many other AR-15 operators the nation over, civilian, military, or LE, perform on a daily basis is just a sign of how Posterior Forwards the whole policy set is.
What so often passes for 'logical' at especially the local level, as you practically described to a letter the personal carbine policy (well, a more restrictive one than a lot of departments, actually), I guess is lost at the Federal. Too many chefs in the kitchen, I guess. The dispersion & diffusion of responsibility (ie disappearance) in huge organizations is kind of absurd to me.
I am certainly not against funding the legal immigration process, which process has been drastically underfunded in the face of overwhelming demand, just as Border Patrol has been. This is a Yes, And problem, rather than a rifle problem. The whole enchilada needs to be better funded, period. Then again, DHS is the brainchild of an insane GOP that can't figure out if it likes small government (given that DHS is a monstrosity) or hates funding government or quite what... Regardless, the obstructionism in Congress can barely fund a package of twinkies without first determining if the twinkies are American enough, secure or a threat to the United States, or otherwise worth shutting the government down over.
At the end of the day, though, you are very correct. Even further, it isn't like the AR-15 requires a PhD in rocketry to understand and maintain. That an individual posting has no individual given the task, much less qual'ed or at the very least vested with the capability, to perform basic maintenance that so many other AR-15 operators the nation over, civilian, military, or LE, perform on a daily basis is just a sign of how Posterior Forwards the whole policy set is.
I could write a novel disagreeing with one of your paragraphs and explaining how disingenuous it is but this isn't the forum for political discourse.
Even when I was in the Army in Germany, the unit armorer (who was a grunt assigned to the HQ platoon) was not allowed to make weapons repairs. He conducted inspections and checked the 2404. If there was a deadline status he notified the support unit.
.
That assertion remains true today. Bench stock is not authorized at the company level in garrison and armorers are trained to do paperwork and not repairs.
Beat Trash
02-04-15, 09:06
As I stated before, it's a simple fix. There are multiple ways to solve this and they only require money and will. The bullshit about not allowing agents to carry personally purchased carbines is just that. It's real simple. Give the agents a list of 1-3 proven carbines that can be used. Weapons must be configured just like the issued weapons as far as optics, etc...
All rifles get inspected by the appropriate personnel and all personnel must qualify with that weapon. Info is recorded on their qualification sheet.
It's funny how they can find money to feed and house illegals, and not provide weapons to those protecting the United States.
This pretty much sums it up. My agency uses pool rifles. Such a bad idea for so many reasons. But better than no rifles. Personally owned/Agency approved guns isn't rocket science either. Have a policy out lining what is an approved gun to qualify with. Two Chief's ago, we had our first Chief from outside of the agency in our 115 year history. New blood, new ways of thinking. All of the sudden, personally owned rifles went from, "Are you nuts! Don't ever mention that idea again!" to "Why not?" With personally owned rifles that meet the agencies requirements, the Border Patrol would obtain access to "X" number of guns without any cost to them. From a management point of view, that should be a "No Brainer".
Annual inspection of BP owned and issued rifles shouldn't be such a huge issue. Outfit a work van with a mobile armors workshop, and some parts. Make minor fixes in the field as the inspectors make the annual inspections.
No matter how you want to approach the issue, it isn't that big of a deal to effectively fix the lack of rifles for the Field agents within the Border Patrol. The ONLY issue is for the Border Patrol's senior management to express the desire. In my mind there are no valid excuses to not equip the field Agents with an issued long gun.
The southern border of our country is the new "Wild Wild West", and has been for a long time. To fail to provide these Agents with the appropriate equipment to protect our border and to protect themselves is unacceptable.
That assertion remains true today. Bench stock is not authorized at the company level in garrison and armorers are trained to do paperwork and not repairs.
A good Machinegunner was always a better bet to fix a machinegun than the armorer.
Mike
Sent from my cell phone with a tiny keyboard and large thumbs...
Personally owned rifles are not the answer for the Patrol. Agents do stupid shit, destroy gear, are cheap and the amount of bad info floating around at the station level re: firearms is ridiculous. It's the .GOV and we have plenty of M4-A1's out there...someone just needs to properly allocate them. Also, iron sighted pool guns are stupid...adding Aimpoints to the pool guns would alleviate a lot of the issues the Patrol is having now with randomly zeroed rifles and save us a ton of $ on AA batteries for the stupid EoTecs on assigned rifles we have now.
You put requirements on them. Police agencies have been doing it for a while, and it's been working great. Half the issues rifles are sub par anyways. And I'd take a bushmaster over a pistol any day.
I don't know if it's THE answer, but it's AN answer. There are many options that are better than the current state.
That may work for an Agency with a few hundred or even a couple thousand cops but the Patrol is 20K+...what happens when there is a gun scare and Agents who need rifles are SOL because of availability? We're not asking our Armed Forces to buy their own guns, the Patrol does a National Security mission and the .Gov just needs to cough up the budget to properly equip them... Let's not even think about the difficulties when dealing with NFA rules on personally owned guns if you have to TDY out of state...
I was told by an BP agent that though they have almost 25K agents, the number that actually carry rifles is considerably less. As I have mentioned elsewhere that are multiple ways to address the issue. Not allowing agents to use personally purchased rifles for the reasons you cited is not valid.
That may work for an Agency with a few hundred or even a couple thousand cops but the Patrol is 20K+...what happens when there is a gun scare and Agents who need rifles are SOL because of availability? We're not asking our Armed Forces to buy their own guns, the Patrol does a National Security mission and the .Gov just needs to cough up the budget to properly equip them... Let's not even think about the difficulties when dealing with NFA rules on personally owned guns if you have to TDY out of state...
You should see the junk magazines that show up at Quals. I wouldn't think it would be much different with rifles...the Patrol disallowed PA's from using personally owned magazines in certain sectors to try and keep the junk out of the field because of the garbage guys were using.
Could a personally owned rifle program work? Maybe, but is the juice worth the squeeze? New Agents at a GL-5 salary are supposed to throw down a paycheck or two for a rifle, optics, mags, sling, light, etc...from the LGS to be able to do their job? Good luck getting that past the Union. Can they buy a used gun? What if it's a "just as good as..." That the LGS put together? Same parts same quality right?
The .gov really just needs to ship a couple truckloads of cases of the M4-A1's that are already in the system for issuance to Agents who take long arms out into the field (and yes, not everyone does). Realistically the Patrol does not need 1 rifle per Agent, it just needs to have 1 available (and assigned to) for each Agent assigned to Line Watch dutys.
Allowing and forced are not the same thing. You are arguing points I have not seen made.
Not trying to argue, just trying to bring a bit of perspective to the issue. PA's are cheap, destroy gear.and most are not gun savy..there is a saying that if you give a PA 2 bowling balls, lock him in a room and turn out the lights. When you turn the lights back on one of the bowling balls will be missing and the other one will be broken.
Allowing, forceing, letting Agents buy their own long arms would only be a bandaid for a larger issue. BP leadership just needs to get their shit together and get the equipment out into the field that is needed to complete the mission.
AZ-Renegade
02-06-15, 14:23
Not all agents are cheap, and many are responsible with their equipment.
I was an FI for several years, and I have seen how uneducated/interested agents can be regarding firearms and training in general. Those people are overshadowed by the agents that take their firearms and training seriously.
If you can qualify expert with a given weapon system and show you are responsible enough to ensure it is maintained and cared for, I see no good reason we should not allow agents to purchase their own rifle, or pistol for that matter. I personally would spend the money to have a rifle I could take home with me everyday that I know hasn't been messed with by some clown in the armory while I was off-duty.
The restriction of agent-owned firearms falls under the preventative policies that were written to protect the Border Patrol from unqualified/stupid people who make it through the hiring process. Instead of preventing stupid people from doing stupid things, we should refrain from hiring stupid people. It's good for the Patrol, good for the country and good for the environment (less paperwork saves trees).
Plus, personally owned firearms are tax deductible, everybody wins.
ETA:
BP Leadership must work under the constraints of the federal bureaucracy. If you gave them all the money they asked for, each agent would get an M4, Ford Raptor, and NVG issued to them. Plus we would have a 50 foot double border fence complete with moat and genetically modified, carnivorous catfish.
The funding issue starts higher up.
AZ, I'm tracking. I have nothing against being allowed to bring my personal rifle on duty (that would be awsome). But, it seems like a short sighted fix to a much larger problem. I'm just thinking it's BS to put it on the shoulders of the individual Agent to pay for and maintain the equipment they need to complete their mission rather than fixing it at the Agency level with propped budgeting and allocation.
Horned Toad
02-07-15, 20:35
You should see the junk magazines that show up at Quals. I wouldn't think it would be much different with rifles...the Patrol disallowed PA's from using personally owned magazines in certain sectors to try and keep the junk out of the field because of the garbage guys were using.
Could a personally owned rifle program work? Maybe, but is the juice worth the squeeze? New Agents at a GL-5 salary are supposed to throw down a paycheck or two for a rifle, optics, mags, sling, light, etc...from the LGS to be able to do their job? Good luck getting that past the Union. Can they buy a used gun? What if it's a "just as good as..." That the LGS put together? Same parts same quality right?
The .gov really just needs to ship a couple truckloads of cases of the M4-A1's that are already in the system for issuance to Agents who take long arms out into the field (and yes, not everyone does). Realistically the Patrol does not need 1 rifle per Agent, it just needs to have 1 available (and assigned to) for each Agent assigned to Line Watch dutys.
The patrol does not disallow personal magazines, there is an approved list of mag, weapon lights and optics.
There is an "approved" list of optics (and other gear) but our Sector replied with a big ol' negative to a request to mount a personally owned Aimpoint (approved model) on a work gun. I hear other Sectors are better about this stuff...big boy rules apply down here as to personal magazines. There was a memo put out to our Sector a while ago saying no magazines other than ones supplied by the Patrol are to be used.
Part of the overall problem is that every Sector and even Station does things a bit different...this is why I have serious doubts about a personally owned rifle program working in the Patrol. I'd be happy with just getting the # of M-4's back up and red dots onto all of our long arms.
Someone told me that the Sectors are kind of like the LAPD in the each one is it's own little fiefdom. Maybe, I am wrong. That being the case it's pretty easy for the HMFIC of policy to say here's how it will be.
I may not be a USBP agent, but I don't need to be one to recognize that there is a huge bloated bureaucracy that is stopping the guys in the field from getting what they need, or they would already have it.
There is an "approved" list of optics (and other gear) but our Sector replied with a big ol' negative to a request to mount a personally owned Aimpoint (approved model) on a work gun. I hear other Sectors are better about this stuff...big boy rules apply down here as to personal magazines. There was a memo put out to our Sector a while ago saying no magazines other than ones supplied by the Patrol are to be used.
Part of the overall problem is that every Sector and even Station does things a bit different...this is why I have serious doubts about a personally owned rifle program working in the Patrol. I'd be happy with just getting the # of M-4's back up and red dots onto all of our long arms.
Horned Toad
02-08-15, 09:57
There is an "approved" list of optics (and other gear) but our Sector replied with a big ol' negative to a request to mount a personally owned Aimpoint (approved model) on a work gun. I hear other Sectors are better about this stuff...big boy rules apply down here as to personal magazines. There was a memo put out to our Sector a while ago saying no magazines other than ones supplied by the Patrol are to be used.
If your sector can't come up with a reason for denying you approved optics, then your union should be balls deep in their ass, same with magazines. Most of the time stations buy decent commercial mags in bulk, 1 Brownells 30 rounder looks just like the next, unless they are issuing them out at the start of shift or putting them on you property card, who is going to be able to tell an issue mag from one you purchased and took care of.
Horned Toad
02-08-15, 10:08
Someone told me that the Sectors are kind of like the LAPD in the each one is it's own little fiefdom. Maybe, I am wrong. That being the case it's pretty easy for the HMFIC of policy to say here's how it will be.
Mostly true, each sector does everything a little different. Top management and workload generally dictate how squared away things are. Just like a Jimmy Carter peace time Army was way different than a GW war time Army.
I may not be a USBP agent, but I don't need to be one to recognize that there is a huge bloated bureaucracy that is stopping the guys in the field from getting what they need, or they would already have it.
Upper management has always been a problem and the merger with DHS has not helped. The most simplest explanation is that big gov does not care about the border. They obviously have to give it some lip service to appease some of the voting block. Every year DHS does a survey on their components. Every year BP come in last or at the bottom. Every year the Agents say the same thing " the most import job out there that no one gives a **** about "
If your sector can't come up with a reason for denying you approved optics, then your union should be balls deep in their ass, same with magazines. Most of the time stations buy decent commercial mags in bulk, 1 Brownells 30 rounder looks just like the next, unless they are issuing them out at the start of shift or putting them on you property card, who is going to be able to tell an issue mag from one you purchased and took care of.
Like I said, big boy rules apply to magazines...I asked our last lead FI about P-Mags a couple years ago and he told me that they used to issue them out...as far as he knew I had some..."full" GI mags (28 rounds (sometimes way less)) are issued out at the beginning of shift, the quality ranges from good to piss poor, although I think we got a new batch recently (I haven't used them for a long time).
As for optics, that guidance came direct from Sector (approved optics apparently also means .Gov purchased). Most of the assigned rifles have an EoTurd on them but the pool guns are iron sighted. I did just manage to score an H-1 from a buddy at Sector that is now on my property card (and rifle) WooHoo!!!
But yea, management needs to show some leadership and get this shit straightened out...that's really all it will take.
echo5whiskey
02-08-15, 19:38
Not to take pleasure in your agony, but I thought my agency was the most screwed up in the Feds. At least now I know someone else is on par with us. Good luck, and stay safe.
Yea... Pretty sure CBP rifles is now where near a priority.
http://drudgegae.iavian.net/v2/r?n=1&s=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtontimes.com%2Fnews%2F2015%2Ffeb%2F8%2Fhomeland-security-sets-up-obama-amnesty-complaint-%2F
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.