Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 82

Thread: Would the Surefire 60 round AR15 mag be good for Law Enforcement duty?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,841
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    [QUOTE=GIJew766;1051815]I believe it bears repeating that, as a LEO, you are held seriously accountable for where your rounds go. It is a different ball game in theater in the military. Sure you want to avoid collateral damage, but your priority is putting down the threat. Different animal being a LEO.

    The priority is still to stop the threat, semantics at play. How is putting down the threat different. Even more so as an LEO

    Law enforcement is expected (erroneously, may I add) to be able to shoot to wound and disable a hostile subject. They are expected to hit their target regardless of the scenario.

    No we are not expected to shoot to wound. That would be illegal in every state I would imagine. We are trained to shoot to neutralize the threat. If we believe we can shoot to wound then it is not a deadly force scenario and doesn't get shot. It gets, sprayed, tazed, or restrained.

    Adding more ammo to the magazine in the rifle will increase an inaccurate officer's chance of scoring a hit in the same way that rolling a pair of dice more often will increase your likelihood of rolling snake eyes. It does not make up for an officer's ability to accurately engage a target. That comes from training.

    By what standard? Using that logic how many rounds should each individual officer carry? One 20 rounder, why a thirty? Maybe we should all carry S&W model 10's. Is a spare magazine any different? I think you're arguing against more ammo because you believe officers aren't qualified. That is not the reason for not carrying a 60 rounder.
    "The peace we have within us is most often expressed in how we treat others"

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    547
    Feedback Score
    0
    Gijew - I agree. It's the public's perception, heavily based on movies and tv, that gave me the greatest pause in choosing le as my future career. Lots of family and friends are on the job so I get pretty good feedback on my questions. They gave me a lot to think about and I decided that I am willing to walk that tightrope. Examples of things that they told me include the public thinking you are a robot shooting machine after a few months of academy training, officers coming to qual and not being able to unholster because they forgot how to break retention, some female officers and soft guys who have never been in a fight standing there rather than backing you up, administrators, etc... the list goes on and on but I don't mean to detract from the thread. I know over here is different from over there.

    That said, I don't think anyone is pushing these mags to be issue, rather, I think the question is closer to: for a well trained officer, would these mag serve as an useful addition to the toolkit under certain circumstances. Just my understanding, please set me straight if I am off the mark.

    Swanneetim- I'm quiet about my background and will do so until I'm on with a department. This is why I stay in the realm of general info/knowledge in my posts. As for "lanes," call it what you want to but I stay in mine based on what I am comfortable revealing on public forums at this stage in my life. And as for giving reasons for telling someone that they MAY be out o their lane, I explained that I thought his statement was a vast generalization and then gave a concrete EXAMPlE. I don't know what more you want, maybe read my post again and let me know where I was ambiguous or unclear.
    Last edited by sboza; 07-19-11 at 22:34.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA/Mount Pleasant, SC
    Posts
    358
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    [QUOTE=seb5;1051954]
    Quote Originally Posted by GIJew766 View Post
    I believe it bears repeating that, as a LEO, you are held seriously accountable for where your rounds go. It is a different ball game in theater in the military. Sure you want to avoid collateral damage, but your priority is putting down the threat. Different animal being a LEO.

    The priority is still to stop the threat, semantics at play. How is putting down the threat different. Even more so as an LEO

    Law enforcement is expected (erroneously, may I add) to be able to shoot to wound and disable a hostile subject. They are expected to hit their target regardless of the scenario.

    No we are not expected to shoot to wound. That would be illegal in every state I would imagine. We are trained to shoot to neutralize the threat. If we believe we can shoot to wound then it is not a deadly force scenario and doesn't get shot. It gets, sprayed, tazed, or restrained.

    Adding more ammo to the magazine in the rifle will increase an inaccurate officer's chance of scoring a hit in the same way that rolling a pair of dice more often will increase your likelihood of rolling snake eyes. It does not make up for an officer's ability to accurately engage a target. That comes from training.

    By what standard? Using that logic how many rounds should each individual officer carry? One 20 rounder, why a thirty? Maybe we should all carry S&W model 10's. Is a spare magazine any different? I think you're arguing against more ammo because you believe officers aren't qualified. That is not the reason for not carrying a 60 rounder.
    I believe you're reading more into my post that intended. I'm not stating priorities are different, I'm stating that the means and tactics as well as what is deemed "acceptable" by the public are different for the military versus law enforcement.

    That leads me to the "shoot to wound" thing. I wasn't saying LEOs are told to shoot to wound, I'm saying that the public thinks that that is what should happen. Misinterpreting what I said, and it is partially my fault for leaving it vague.

    Finally, for the whole ammo in the magazine issue. This one is where you are overanalyzing my statement. Giving an officer sixty rounds in one magazine versus two magazines doesn't change his/her ability or chances to hit the target. Yes, I do see a problem with the amount of training and that is the major issue here. I'm saying that a 60 round magazine won't change an officer's ability to accurately engage and neutralize the threat.

    I said the same as that last paragraph recently somewhere else about the limited amount of firearms training I received in the US Border Patrol. Considering a BP Agent generally works either alone or in a partner environment in isolated locations away from backup, there should have been more training to get the Agents prepared to survive those deadly encounters. I also know that half of the folks I went to FLETC with were only aware of how many rounds their magazines had in them when they suddenly ran dry. Giving those folks 60 rounds instead of 30 in the gun grants them more time to be unaware of their fire discipline. The sense of urgency to get accurate fire on the tango after that 30 rounder runs dry should be the kick in the nuts an Agent or officer needs. I feel that the 60 rounder takes that psychological aspect out of it.

    Just my $.02, for what it's worth to you.


    H


    PS: Always feels awkward when I say anything that runs contrary to Chief. Any Chief. Period. Just my personal observation.
    Last edited by GIJew766; 07-19-11 at 22:15.
    "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-Thomas Paine

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,841
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    [QUOTE=GIJew766;1051970]
    Quote Originally Posted by seb5 View Post

    I believe you're reading more into my post that intended. I'm not stating priorities are different, I'm stating that the means and tactics as well as what is deemed "acceptable" by the public are different for the military versus law enforcement.

    That leads me to the "shoot to wound" thing. I wasn't saying LEOs are told to shoot to wound, I'm saying that the public thinks that that is what should happen. Misinterpreting what I said, and it is partially my fault for leaving it vague.

    Finally, for the whole ammo in the magazine issue. This one is where you are overanalyzing my statement. Giving an officer sixty rounds in one magazine versus two magazines doesn't change his/her ability or chances to hit the target. Yes, I do see a problem with the amount of training and that is the major issue here. I'm saying that a 60 round magazine won't change an officer's ability to accurately engage and neutralize the threat.

    I said the same as that last paragraph recently somewhere else about the limited amount of firearms training I received in the US Border Patrol. Considering a BP Agent generally works either alone or in a partner environment in isolated locations away from backup, there should have been more training to get the Agents prepared to survive those deadly encounters. I also know that half of the folks I went to FLETC with were only aware of how many rounds their magazines had in them when they suddenly ran dry. Giving those folks 60 rounds instead of 30 in the gun grants them more time to be unaware of their fire discipline. The sense of urgency to get accurate fire on the tango after that 30 rounder runs dry should be the kick in the nuts an Agent or officer needs. I feel that the 60 rounder takes that psychological aspect out of it.

    Just my $.02, for what it's worth to you.


    H


    PS: Always feels awkward when I say anything that runs contrary to Chief. Any Chief. Period. Just my personal observation.
    I appreciate the tactful response. I think that in person we might agree more on this topic than disagree I am all about accurate fire and training and the reality is we have to account for all shots whether hits or misses. I just get a little defensive when it starts to sound like the amount of ammo we can carry is directly related to some abstract level of training. I know there are a lot of cops that are not great with their weapons but I had guys on my team in Iraq that were even worse. Some guys are serious about firearms and others consider them just another tool. I really think the training issue is seperate from defining the needs of this magazine for LEO purposes.
    "The peace we have within us is most often expressed in how we treat others"

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA/Mount Pleasant, SC
    Posts
    358
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    [QUOTE=seb5;1051989]
    Quote Originally Posted by GIJew766 View Post

    I appreciate the tactful response. I think that in person we might agree more on this topic than disagree I am all about accurate fire and training and the reality is we have to account for all shots whether hits or misses. I just get a little defensive when it starts to sound like the amount of ammo we can carry is directly related to some abstract level of training. I know there are a lot of cops that are not great with their weapons but I had guys on my team in Iraq that were even worse. Some guys are serious about firearms and others consider them just another tool. I really think the training issue is seperate from defining the needs of this magazine for LEO purposes.
    You are most likely correct, Chief. I was with the Seabees and served with plenty of guys during convoy work that couldn't hit the broad side of a carrier if the barrel of the rifle was against the ship itself. But I digress.

    I disagree that the training and role definition of this magazine should be separate. I see it the same way I see raising taxes to fix the deficit. The extra ammo in the magazine's capacity is like the increased revenue from a tax hike which will be represented by water. The inability to hit brought on by a lack of training is the equivalent of the outrageous spending by the government (the economy) which will be represented in this analogy by a water pitcher with a bunch of holes in it. Stay with me, here, for a tick. Are you going to pour more water into a leaky pitcher and call it good, or are you going to patch the holes first? Fix the training issue so that the current load out is put to better use. No reason to spend $130 on a magazine that won't make your shooter any more accurate when you could spend that $130 bucks on ammo and time on the range. Just saying.


    H
    "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-Thomas Paine

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    683
    Feedback Score
    0
    Sboza
    No I don't advicate carring one mag, what I'm saying is hitting what you shoot at! Yea I know -well it's different when someones shooting back -yep your damned right it is! If your taking rounds yep put some down range to get to cover, access the threat , either engage -remove it or fall back to plan your attack/get backup! Spraying 60 rounds down range most likely will not solve the problem! And for LEO's to do so will not further there careers at all! I thought that why you guy's go to all these classes to learn?
    Last edited by GunnutAF; 07-19-11 at 23:55.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    547
    Feedback Score
    0
    I think a lot of disagreement here comes from the assumption that some are considering these 60 rounders as a crutch rather than another tool for the well trained shooter. I don't think anyone has argued that a 60 round mag for your load and/or reload allows you to spray and pray for longer. On the contrary, I think the argument, at least from my point of view, should be how and when can these be used by the trained shooter to help gain an advantage. Again, I would not mind having a 30 round load and 60's for reloads since if I'm reloading, I'm already in a gunfight and want a full mag on my gun for longer. Why and when would that be an advantage? Probably in rare shtf scenarios, but I don't see a disadvantage having 60 round mags for reloads. Just my opinion and I can't give it fro
    le point of view yet so take it for what it's worth.

    I think at the end of the day everyone here agrees that more bullets do not remedy a bad shooter and, in fact, can make the outcome much worse.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA/Mount Pleasant, SC
    Posts
    358
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Vrai gut.

    In that case, how do we decide who to equip with these magazines. How many? Do we just give them to SWAT? What about anyone who works warrants? Are they in the gun, as some suggest, or are they reloads riding in a bag/pouch on a vest?

    I agree that keeping your weapon trained on the threat longer is a good thing, but the logistical nightmare of fielding these things in departments that are laying off officers at this point in time is staggering. Where I see these being huge with law enforcement would be remote areas where it's usually just the Sheriff's personnel, or with CBP personnel (especially OAM guys and Patrol Agents). Places and situations where backup may be a while off and you may be required to defend you or your partner's life, civilian lives, etc, all while under fire from meth cookers, drug runners, and all of the other nasties you find in isolated hell holes.

    I would love to be able to get a few of these to the guys down in my old sector, just to give them an edge and to see how they hold up.


    H
    "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."-Thomas Paine

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Midwest, USA
    Posts
    8,192
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    20rds in a OIS is a lot of shooting.
    30rds is an awful lot of shooting.
    60rds... etc

    That's not to say that we should limit ammo that patrol (or any other unit) carries, but keep the above in mind.

    When I contemplate the number of magazines officers should carry, I don't think in terms of quantity of ammunition therein as much as I think about the purposes magazines serve. Therefore, I generally arrive at three magazines as being a good standard for most LE duties, regardless of capacity.

    • One magazine is the primary feeder in the gun at the time of conflict.
    • One magazine is a spare, to replenish the gun when the primary magazine is depleted.
    • One magazine is a spare, to replace either of the previous two should they become lost, broken, or otherwise unavailable.

    People became focused on quantity of ammunition, not realizing that depletion of ammunition is a far less likely scenario than troop losing or breaking his mags.
    Last edited by ST911; 07-20-11 at 18:09.
    2012 National Zumba Endurance Champion
    الدهون القاع الفتيات لك جعل العالم هزاز جولة الذهاب

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Wakanda
    Posts
    18,863
    Feedback Score
    4 (100%)

    Lightbulb

    As first responders today’s law enforcement professionals are faced with a myriad of tasks that may potentially throw them into any number of scenarios. The wise Officer (providing his agency approves) will have equipment to sustain him during such instances. Many LEOs carry in the trunk of their squad an “active shooter” kit. This may include everything from a plate carrier with extra mags for their patrol rifle/carbine to more specialized implements. I see these new SF mags as a force multiplier.

    If a LEO is walking into the next Virginia Tech why would you not want them having these? If sixty rounds it “too much” for a LEO then what about thirty, or even twenty? How much is “too much”? Do you think the LAPD Officers responding to the North Hollywood bank robbery on 28 February 1997 could have used these, or how about the FBI agents in Miami on 11 April 1986?

    To date there are several municipal law enforcement agencies in CONUS that have belt-fed and or anti-material small arms for everything from perimeter control to area denial at sensitive sights. 9/11 changed the game, many in the profession anticipate events like what Mumbai saw in 2008 occuring here.
    Last edited by Moose-Knuckle; 07-20-11 at 18:57.
    "In a nut shell, if it ever goes to Civil War, I'm afraid I'll be in the middle 70%, shooting at both sides" — 26 Inf


    "We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them." — CNN's Don Lemon 10/30/18

Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •