Irresponsible?

[WDW]

The PD in my town just began allowing officers to carry patrol rifles, specifically AR-15's. that's great, frankly they're a few years behind the curve IMO. What shocked me, is that they are allowing them to carry personally assembled, privately owned rifles. That just seems like a huge liability to me.

[Byron]

I was under the impression that this was an exceedingly common practice among small agencies because of budget limitations.

I don't disagree that there are potential issues, but I'm guessing (hoping) that the PD will at least inspect the privately owned weapons before clearing them for duty.

[RoyGBiv]

The PD in my town just began allowing officers to carry patrol rifles, specifically AR-15's. that's great, frankly they're a few years behind the curve IMO. What shocked me, is that they are allowing them to carry personally assembled, privately owned rifles. That just seems like a huge liability to me.

Range, fire, repeat. Functional. No?

[WDW]

Range, fire, repeat. Functional. No?

Oh I agree, but in today's litigious society, things just aren't allowed to be simple anymore. I just envision cheap lowers, cheap uppers, & cheap parts in between (Tapco, DPMS, Bushmaster, etc.). Seems like they would have a list of proven, approved guns & it's that or nothing. Still doesnt cost them a thing. I get the privately owned aspect, but the personally assembled part is what I don't agree with. Anybody can assemble an AR. Assembling it correctly in a manner fit for duty is another thing.

[pr1042]

Would imagine that most agencies with personally owned rifles would have approved manufacturers and are subject to armorer inspection before being allowed on duty. Then again, you know what they say about assumptions

And to that point, the term "build" or "assembled" seems to mean nothing more these days than buying a complete lower, buying a complete upper, then slapping them together and calling it a build.

[TGS]

Is it any different than allowing officers to carry personally owned sidearms?

[WDW]

Is it any different than allowing officers to carry personally owned sidearms?

Yes, they don't assemble those themselves out of a hodge podge of different parts.

[Dan_S]

As a mere civilian, maybe I'm not qualified to have an opinion here, but....


My thought is that if the individual officer in question doesn't care enough to make sure that he is carrying a rifle of suitable quality, why should I care?

[WDW]

As a mere civilian, maybe I'm not qualified to have an opinion here, but....


My thought is that if the individual officer in question doesn't care enough to make sure that he is carrying a rifle of suitable quality, why should I care?

Because at some point, however unlikely, he may be using it to come to your aid. I don't really care anyway. I just thought it was an irresponsible policy.

[Corlissimo]

As a mere civilian, maybe I'm not qualified to have an opinion here, but....


My thought is that if the individual officer in question doesn't care enough to make sure that he is carrying a rifle of suitable quality, why should I care?

Just a civvie myself, but what comes to my mind is that if the officer is deploying his AR it's probably in a scenario that involves innocents and not just himself. If said AR malfs, not only is the officer's life at risk but so are the lives of those he's trying to protect. (yeah, yeah, I know... SCOTUS said the police aren't obligated to protect anyone's lives) :p

If he injures or kills an innocent because he didn't vet his personal weapon (or didn't know how to), THAT'S a huge liability. I know I wouldn't want to be the innocent who got shot by the police because the officer didn't have his scope/RDS mounted or zeroed properly.

[Dan_S]

For me personally, the cops aren't gonna be coming to my aid. For just about my whole life I've lived in places that the cops, if called for anything of importance, would show up just in time to break out the body bags.

Having gotten that out of the way...

Isn't it up to the individual officer to make the decision as to whether his gear is suitable or not? Personally, I think my gear choices are *more* important than what some LEO chooses, because I know that if my life is in danger, it'll be me, myself, and I that are required to respond - not LE.



I guess I'm just not seeing the difference here between what an average civilian chooses to defend themselves with, and what a cop chooses to carry on duty, but maybe my perspective is off, given my lack of understanding of reliance on some far-away entity that isn't legally required to help me...


:cool:

[ToddG]

Yes, they don't assemble those themselves out of a hodge podge of different parts.

I've known cops who did exactly that with 1911s. Just last year I taught an agency class with officer -- a genuinely good guy -- whose personally owned 1911 wouldn't run well enough for him to finish the FAST (6 shots). He'd been carrying it for... well, for a long time. If I'm remembering right, I was told he replaced it with an HK a day or two after the class was over.


My thought is that if the individual officer in question doesn't care enough to make sure that he is carrying a rifle of suitable quality, why should I care?

Because the officer isn't sworn in and given a slew of special police powers just so for the sake of improving his personal defense. The citizens in his community are depending on him. His partners are depending on him. Etc. So if he buys a piece of crap gun it's not just his life that is in danger.

Having said that, far more agencies have run what ya' brung policies when it comes to pistols and carbines. While it makes sense to recommend some kind of armorer inspection the reality is very few agencies have the skilled manpower to perform such an inspection. Face it, if an agency is letting its people run around with an Olympic Arms carbine just how switched on do you think the firearms unit is? Heck, there may not be a firearms unit for the department.

Firearms selection and issuance at law enforcement agencies is a very complex issue that unfortunately cannot be answered with any kind of universal rule for every agency in every jurisdiction.

[WDW]

I've known cops who did exactly that with 1911s. Just last year I taught an agency class with officer -- a genuinely good guy -- whose personally owned 1911 wouldn't run well enough for him to finish the FAST (6 shots). He'd been carrying it for... well, for a long time. If I'm remembering right, I was told he replaced it with an HK a day or two after the class was over.

I almost wrote, "except for the guys that carry home brew 1911's", but I didn't. I hope to the Almighty cops like that are few & far between.

[Dan_S]

I almost wrote, "except for the guys that carry home brew 1911's", but I didn't. I hope to the Almighty cops like that are few & far between.

Well, how about the *one* department I know of that actually issues Ruger semi-auto handguns...?

:D

[ToddG]

Well, how about the *one* department I know of that actually issues Ruger semi-auto handguns...?

Wisconsin's state police were issued Ruger semiautos for almost twenty years.

While I don't find them particularly elegant, I've got to say that Ruger semiautos tend to be pretty reliable and rugged.

[Dan_S]

Wisconsin's state police were issued Ruger semiautos for almost twenty years.

While I don't find them particularly elegant, I've got to say that Ruger semiautos tend to be pretty reliable and rugged.

You are not speaking about the newer crop of Ruger handguns, I hope...

With the garbage that I've seen come out of Ruger (with the notable exception of some of their revolvers) I'd be hard pressed to spend another cent of my money on a Ruger product.

[ToddG]

You are not speaking about the newer crop of Ruger handguns, I hope...

I think I've seen exactly one Ruger semiauto in class over the past five years. It ran perfectly fine to the best of my recollection.

However, I certainly see plenty of them at the range, from P-series to SR-series and more than a few LC guns. I've never noticed any particular trend in terms of problems experienced by their owners. In comparison, it's incredibly common to see someone struggling with a malfunctioning gun and it turns out to be a Springfield XD. We've also had an odd influx of PX4s and Cougars lately and those, too, seem prone to reliability issues. Whodathunkit?

[WDW]

I think I've seen exactly one Ruger semiauto in class over the past five years. It ran perfectly fine to the best of my recollection.

However, I certainly see plenty of them at the range, from P-series to SR-series and more than a few LC guns. I've never noticed any particular trend in terms of problems experienced by their owners. In comparison, it's incredibly common to see someone struggling with a malfunctioning gun and it turns out to be a Springfield XD. We've also had an odd influx of PX4s and Cougars lately and those, too, seem prone to reliability issues. Whodathunkit?

We all know how much you love the rotating barrel system...

[RoyGBiv]

Yes, they don't assemble those themselves out of a hodge podge of different parts.

Unless they "upgrade" them with aftermarket triggers, springs, sights, mag releases, etc.
And that's a Glock. You can build a 1911 from a frame, slide and a bag of aftermarket parts.

[WDW]

Unless they "upgrade" them with aftermarket triggers, springs, sights, mag releases, etc.
And that's a Glock. You can build a 1911 from a frame, slide and a bag of aftermarket parts.

See my above post. That is certainly the exception w/pistols. Not the rule.

[ST911]

Any firearm used in performance of duty should meet defensible standards of materials, assembly, inspection/QC, and performance regardless of who owns it. It is the standard to which the gun is held that creates or mitigates liability, not the certificate of ownership.

I am a fierce advocate of allowing high quality, personally owned duty guns of all types, including NFAs where legal. And all of my working guns are my own.

[ST911]

On the Ruger P-Series pistols...

I'm familiar with Wisconsin State Patrol's experience with their Rugers, which was amassed more out of institutional program stagnation rather than product satisfaction. They had a number of issues, and in common with BOP's experience. To their credit, Ruger's CS is good. Like the Mini though, having good CS isn't worth as much as having a good gun to begin with.

They're fine as a sport/rec/hobby gun. In harder service users find several common issues and vulnerabilities within short periods of service. From the agencies above and as offered in the Ruger AC, watch your mag catches, ejectors, safety/decock levers, link pin.

[Chuck Haggard]

I have found that even in very, sometimes VERY, large agencies the firearms program often comes down to one guy and his/her drive to professionalize the program, or not, as they see fit and can sell the bosses on what they want to do.

If you have never run a program then you'd have little idea of just how much BS is involved.

[Clyde from Carolina]

The citizens in his community are depending on him. His partners are depending on him. Etc. So if he buys a piece of crap gun it's not just his life that is in danger.



Firearms selection and issuance at law enforcement agencies is a very complex issue that unfortunately cannot be answered with any kind of universal rule for every agency in every jurisdiction.

Well said.


I have found that even in very, sometimes VERY, large agencies the firearms program often comes down to one guy and his/her drive to professionalize the program, or not, as they see fit and can sell the bosses on what they want to do.

If you have never run a program then you'd have little idea of just how much BS is involved.

This.