Holocaust Museum Shooting And .30 Carbine Type Rifle

The problem with patrolling with a long gun strapped on is this:

In security (and even in law enforcement), your problems with another human are going to be solved by using your mouth and then (rarely) by using your hands. It is rare for it to be solved by gunplay The benefit of having a long gun available is far outweighed by the inconvenience of carrying it all day, even if secured by a good sling.

Pushing, pulling, wrestling and cuffing with a rifle or shotgun bouncing around on you sucks. Walking around all day with it sucks. I would agree that needing one (especially if you don't have one) sucks even more though.

Obviously, this is different if you are providing security for a high-risk target or one against which there is already a known threat.
 
This reminds me of the ongoing (for close to 70 years) search that the military has had for a "personal defense weapon." The M1 Carbine was first issued to replace the pistol , only later was it given to front line troops. Perhaps guards and police should be armed with something other than handguns. However I do agree that the M1 Carbine is probably outdated for that role.
The Carabinieri which are the national bolice force of Italy carry submachine guns. People here would no doubt freak out if our guards or police had those.
Maybe I am wrong but would'nt a weapon in .223 caliber have to much penetration?
 
I'm not sure what the practical difference would have been between what actually happened, and what would have happened if the guards have been armed with carbines instead of pistols. Possibly the only difference is that the shooter might have come even more heavily armed.
 
The Beretta CX4 carbine was designed for police work, i.e. a little more than a pistol, a lot less than an M-16. Pistol-caliber, short, light, and interchangeable magazines with the Berreta pistols. However, relatively few security forces have seen fit to equip themselves with it. Perhaps this event will cause some to reevaluate. BTW, it just occurred to me that the Italian Caribinieri's name comes from the Italian word for carbineer, a soldier armed with a carbine.
 
why not a rifle more accuracy and control sure it would look weird but should we concern ourselves with how things look
 
As far as the general public having a negative reaction to security guards with rifles, on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious. There seemed to be no negative responses from anyone near me. I believe that people realize that this world we live in has changed dramatically and that what we have accepted in the past for security is simply no longer valid.

Europe, as well as most of the "Civilized World", has had police and security guards armed with military styled rifles or submachine guns for decades and th populace seems to have adapted to that well enough. frankly, it isn't as if most Americans know that the police have either shotguns or rifles in their squad car. Or in some cases both. It is simply getting used to the visibility factor more than anything.
 
...on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious.
Click to expand...
Well this is not the same situation as guards at a museum. We expect the leader of the free world (whether you voted for him or not) to have the best security money can buy. I would be disappointed if the POTUS was being guarded by anything less!

Scott
 
Daisey, you are correct in your view that the M1 carbine would allow much more precise shooting than will a handgun. In fact, that is the very reason that it was designed, and 6 million were manufactured and distributed during WWII.
Click to expand...

Errr, no, it was not designed for the premise of being more accurate than a handgun. The criterion at the time wasn't to find a platform more accurate than a handgun with which to arm troops as there was no consideration of arming troops with just handguns.

The military wanted a rifle less powerful than a Garand but more powerful than a handgun to issue to troops that needed a weapon but not necessarily a M1 Rifle.
 
scottaschultz:

...on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious.
Click to expand...

Well this is not the same situation as guards at a museum. We expect the leader of the free world (whether you voted for him or not) to have the best security money can buy. I would be disappointed if the POTUS was being guarded by anything less!

Scott
Click to expand...

Umm, nice job of taking a part of my comment out of context to prove your point. Let me repost the entire paragraph so that maybe you will reread it and understand my point.

As far as the general public having a negative reaction to security guards with rifles, on my last visit (As a tourist of course) to the Whitehouse the presence of guards with both shotguns AND AR-15's was very obvious. There seemed to be no negative responses from anyone near me. I believe that people realize that this world we live in has changed dramatically and that what we have accepted in the past for security is simply no longer valid.
Click to expand...

It seems rather obvious when you read the ENTIRE comment what I was trying to say. Please, in the future if you plan on quoting me try to use the entire sentence instead of cutting and pasting out of context.

As far as the President having the best security I won't argue that he needs it. But I refuse to devalue the life of any citizen as an excuse for a lower level of security in public buildings. This is what you seem to be advocating.

As for me, I have no problem with security gaurds, at high risk level public buildings or areas, being armed with something more than a side arm. I believe citizens would accept it in today's world.
 
The M1 carbine was intended for use by non-front line troops as a substitute for the currently issued .45 ACP 1911 handgun. The major reason for that was the fact that few support troops were capable of accurately firing the .45 auto. The carbine was not intended to be an intermediate power long gun. The fact that it became widely used by front line troops, especially airborne, was an unintended benefit.
 
Umm, nice job of taking a part of my comment out of context to prove your point.
Click to expand...
Whoa! Someone needs to switch to decaf! I wasn't disagreeing with you in the least. My only point was that it should not come as a surprise to anyone to see the president being guarded with such weaponry.

All life is precious and sacred... until you attempt to take mine!

Scott
 
Anyone know what weapon/caliber James von Brunn was shot with?
Click to expand...

Yes, per Wackenhut G4S policy, the Holocaust Museum officers were armed with .38spl. I believe, but am not certain, that they are S&W's of some breed...

As far as the OP, I work in the private security industry much like this brave man who I will refer to as a hero from here on out. At some posts, rifles/shotguns are a practical piece of equipment. For example, working in a 'rough' post in town would be a great place for a long gun. However, in an area with so many people that become incredibly crowded, a rifle is neither prudent nor practical. You have to take penetration risks into account as well as issues with manueverability of a long gun. I have never been to the Golocaust Museum, but I doubt that there is much room, especially with a lobby full of visitors, for an S/O (in this case an SPO) to bring a long gun to bear. A handgun is the primary weapon of so many armed officers for a reason.

Also, the security industry is plagued by profit. Companies have to do everything in their power to appease uneducated "sheeple" (I hate this word, but it fits) This includes using substandard weaponry and having "soft" uniforms. For example, I used to secure a bank and we were issued Taurus 65's in 357with .38 ball ammo. No speedloaders, no other "excessive" means of force (i.e. Taser, OC, ASP, etc:barf::rolleyes:) I also caught a ton of flak from my opsmgr for wearing BDU's (I carry a FAK with me, I think it should be req'd of any armed S/O) All because the clients think that anything more looks too "military/tactical/scary/guygoingonakillingspree-ish" Totally foolish, but these standards must be adhered to in order to keep a business afloat. With this in mind, long guns would probably be frowned upon greatly...What a shame...
 
Last edited:
penetration

Doug makes a good point. The M1 carbine has much more penetration than does the 38spcl or 9mm handgun rounds. The carbine was a military weapon for which limiting penetration is not high on the list of desirable characteristics.
 
Security guards also play other roles besides armed security. They assist the public, help with injuries and incidents, and may have to detain troublemakers. A rifle would get in the way of their daily duties.
 
Right. Generally speaking, to have a rifle at the ready for such an incident, you would likely need a dedicated rifleguard(s) whose job it was NOT to do any of those other activities.

Doug makes a good point. The M1 carbine has much more penetration than does the 38spcl or 9mm handgun rounds.
Click to expand...

Actually, M1 carbines have excessively poor penetration. :D .30 cal carbine rounds have better penetration than .38 spl or 9mm rounds maybe, but then again, under penetration isn't usually a major issue with 9mm rounds is it?

Then again 9mm rounds fired from a carbine have better velocity and if using ball ammo, better penetration than 9mm rounds fired from a pistol.
 
ZippZ:

Security guards also play other roles besides armed security. They assist the public, help with injuries and incidents, and may have to detain troublemakers. A rifle would get in the way of their daily duties.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not buying this logic.

First of all, it is not necessary for every security gaurd to carry a rifle. I would say one at each entrance of these high risk facilities. Or perhaps 1 out of every 4 guards could carry a rifle.

Secondly, as I stated previously, there are very visible gaurds outside of the Whitehouse armed with shotguns and automatic weapons and the crowds seem to take it in stride. I think we sell the general public short when we dismiss out of hand their ability to understand why heavier armed guards are needed at high risk facilities. I would wager that those wishing to see the Holocaust Museum would totally understand the need. The lunatic fringe will do whatever they deem necessary to further their agenda, no matter how delusional it is.

Thirdly, I would easily trade off the discomfort of a few visitors at the site of more heavily armed guards for the increased protection of ALL of the vistors.
 
You need a DA/Sa ( or DAO) set up for most security personell.

A carbnine would not be effective with out a round in the caimber, and it would be unsafe with a round in and safety on...even compared to a series 80 model 1911.

Most domestic security companies use a revolver for this reason...simplicity and saftey.
 
"Actually, M1 cardines have poor penetration..."

Compared to what? They have much more penetration than any of the commonly used handgun rounds. If you believe the carbine round has poor penetration go to the Box O' Truth website and see their penetration tests, or go to the ballistics gelatin tests on http//www.brassfetcher.com

Why would you expect poor penetration with a 110 gr bullet at 1950 fps?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top