Pistol Caliber Carbines For Patrol Use?

[rob_s]

There is nothing in the OP about a motorcycle unit. Policing is regional - “road patrol” or “on the road” is simply how some places refer to uniformed patrol.

Agree, in our area there is little to no walking “beat cops” and virtually everyone is in a car or “road patrol” or “on the road”

this appears to be intended for general issue.

[WobblyPossum]

Wobbly, any idea what these departments are using these weapons for? Standatd patrol or SWAT weapons or some specialized function?

Somewhat off topic from patrol long guns, an LASD SEB deputy at TacOps East mentioned that their teams' primary long gun was the MP-5. That seemed an odd choice in today's world, but mad respect for the unit.

Sorry I have no idea. I had based that post on the press releases or articles I found announcing the contract awards.

This is the second mention I’ve recently heard about LASD SEB still using the MP5 as their primary long gun. That’s so weird to me in 2024.

[Magsz]

@Magsz - What state are you in?

I just read through this thread and felt like I stepped back into 1999 when all the post-Columbine nonsense broke out and there were actual articles in police journals about using a Maglite or Kel-Lite as shoulder stock to steady your pistol for hallway shots. Pure stupidity at its very best.

We still have a whole bunch of H&K MP5's, which are essentially a PCC. Do you know how many people carry one on patrol? Zero. Why? Because anyway you slice it 5.56 is just better under 99% of circumstances. The mag compatibility thing is just nonsense and guess what? If everyone is carrying an AR they're all using compatible magazines anyway.

The easy button is to buy standard 16" AR's like a Colt 6920 or S&W M&P line and issue those with an Aimpoint PRO or Trijicon MRO, VTAC sling, a Surefire Mini Scout Turbo, and Magpul PMAGS, and call it a day. A 16 hour "new user" course should work for the transition and an annual 4 hour in-service with built-in qual would keep everyone current.

Kev,

Sorry for the slow response. Been really busy with work and family.

I'm located in Florida.

We tend to gravitate towards a lot of unrealistic scenarios based out of some wild dream that our trainers or admin staff have. Raging gun battles where we are throwing each other magazines simply don't happen in domestic law enforcement. Can it happen? Absolutely. Has it happened? Absolutely but to ME, it's absolutely not a major consideration when assessing efficacy of a particular weapon system versus another.

We are currently experiencing a massive drought of individuals who want rifles. I believe this year so far we've had something like ninety rifles turned in from people who didn't want to qualify, couldn't qualify or simply didn't want to be hassled. To me, this is alarming and a massive problem given our jurisdiction. The aforementioned number may be inaccurate as that is second hand information but anything more than ONE or TWO rifles being GIVEN up is TOO much for my blood.

Handing out PCC's wont solve the problem. It will only make it worse when we fail to stop an armored threat.

It's been a bit since i've posted this. I haven't heard anything new regarding this. I'll have to ask some of my buddies in training if there's been any movement on this horrible idea.

[spj]

Was issued a Ruger 9mm carbine for several years. Was initially carrying a beretta 92 and the idea was they could be modified to use :the Beretta mags. Yeah no. They were a good little gun. I was able to rig an Aimpoint on it. Now running a 10.5 with a can, aimpoint and magnifier. Times change!

[TGS]

We are currently experiencing a massive drought of individuals who want rifles.

I still don't understand this.

Is there some reason your admin doesn't just make it mandatory?

[jnc36rcpd]

I still don't understand this.

Is there some reason your admin doesn't just make it mandatory?

An agency could do that, but many agencies don't care that much. Rifles, Tasers, and shotguns were optional at my former employer. I was a bomb-throwing radical when I became and instructor and mandated officers attempt (and hopefully pass) shotgun qualification. I followed this up by requiring people to certify with the Taser even if they didn't carry one.

Money can come into it. If you have 100 officers and only thirty really want to train with and carry shotguns (or rifles or ballistic shields), that saves a lot of money that can be spent on "coffee with a cop" or whatever.

Agency culture enters into it. My former chief, who definitely wasn;t the worst chief one could work for, mocked executive officers who attended firearms training and qualified with their rifles. He didn't realize that those guys reinforced their credibility with the troops and that anyone can stumble into a gunfight.

That said, TGS is right, If an agency thinks rifle capability is necessary (which it certainly is( the department should just mandate it.

[AMC]

I still don't understand this.

Is there some reason your admin doesn't just make it mandatory?

There can be many reasons, and the fact that 'accountability' when said by a government executive means the exact opposite of what normal people think it means is a major one.

My old departments rifle program was voluntary, but initially highly sought after. About a year before I took over the range, the previous guy proposed that we just add the rifle class to the basic academy and have all the recruits come out rifle certified. Sounds like a good idea, right? In practice, not so much. They actually extended our 30 hr Patrol Rifle course to 40 hrs for the recruits. A whole additional week of range time, which is great, until you're trying to get everything else we were required to do (basic quals, SWAT training, Basic Academy Firearms, Retiree Quals, Etc) scheduled on the same range that was also undergoing intermittent 1-2 week closures several times a year for required maintenance to literally prevent the 80,000 lb baffles from falling on our heads. In practice, something had to give....and it was rifle classes for in service officers. As you can imagine, that lead to resentment and heartburn. Add to that the fact that the recruits were not required to pass, because the class was not a POST mandate. Our department refused to mandate passing anything that wasn't a POST mandate.

Our rifle class actually had decent, above average for the industry standards. It was not at all a gimme class, and some people couldn't pass. When you make the training mandatory, you have to hold people to that standard, and then hold them accountable for failing. That means failing recruits, and taking cops out of service. Most agencies just don't want to deal with that reality. I know ours didn't.

[Magsz]

I still don't understand this.

Is there some reason your admin doesn't just make it mandatory?

I have so many responses to this but i'm not sure where to even start.

As per the red shirts we are a "shotgun centric agency". Yet, we are still issuing 870s with bead sights and a year ago, we were having issues getting 870s from Remington.

I could type an entire essay on our culture etc. but I don't think anyone really wants to read it.

Its been more than a year and I haven't heard anything about this program. I believe they stopped bringing the T&E guns out to our monthly training events. I'll have to ask around to see if anyone has heard anything new.

[TGS]

I have so many responses to this but i'm not sure where to even start.

That made me laugh.

I hear you about the culture. We've got an odd culture in some particular ways, as well. Pretty much everywhere has their quirks.

[DDTSGM]

I still don't understand this.

Is there some reason your admin doesn't just make it mandatory?

Although other's have answered, I think your question was rhetorical in order to generate discussion, so here goes.

IMO, not all officers are cerebral enough to use every use-of-force tool available. In particular I'm talking about less-lethal impact projectiles ('bean bags'), TASERS and rifles. While I'm sure most agencies don't follow this line of thinking, to me 'not cerebral enough' is a significant argument against mandating those tools.

The easy argument to refute that sentiment is to tighten hiring standards. That argument fails simply because of the difficulty agencies are having finding and hiring barely qualified applicants.

The second reason, which has already been talked around, if not mentioned directly, is initial and sustainment training - where to fit it in and how to fund it.

Another reason is priority of tasks and patterns of injury. For instance, is rifle training more important than driver's training? Officer killed statistics tell us the answer is probably non-sexy driving.

I think the best approach is one which allows the officer choose whether they want to be trained with the rifle and then make the training and qualification relevant to the task at hand.

JMO