Why is the shotgun (seemingly) fading in police circles?
- Thread starter Greg Bell
- Start date
roberts_usmc
New member
Damn roy.
The purpose of law enforcement in a society is to maintain good order.
Were you trying to make some kind of a point? I'm not being sarcastic... I mean, really... were you making some kind of a point?
The purpose of law enforcement in a society is to maintain good order.
Were you trying to make some kind of a point? I'm not being sarcastic... I mean, really... were you making some kind of a point?
Too Military?
I respect most law enforcement officers. They have a rotten job in todays society. I can't imagine the danger they put themselves into daily and I appreciate it for helps to make me safer. But, I am a little nervous seeing so many peace officers armed like paramilitary units. Maybe being here in California watching my gun rights going down the drain is clouding my thinking.
I respect most law enforcement officers. They have a rotten job in todays society. I can't imagine the danger they put themselves into daily and I appreciate it for helps to make me safer. But, I am a little nervous seeing so many peace officers armed like paramilitary units. Maybe being here in California watching my gun rights going down the drain is clouding my thinking.
..I agree that a rifle definitely has a place in the police arsenal....I disagree that a shotgun is outmoded....BULL...I haven't seen a detailed report of the Hollywood incident..but from some previous comments it seems the police were a bit shell-shocked when things started popping and got off a minimum amount of rounds..more like duck and cover...the robbers were not wearing armor on the heads or limbs...a few well place blasts from a SG should have had an effect in wounding an assailant long enough to finish him off with a head shot...the two bandits were out numbered by far...even with automatic weapons...they can only shoot a one target at a time...they should have been pinned down by similtanious fire from a dozen police at one time....oh well..after a little research..the police did fire a quantity of rounds...I am still unsure how much armor the robbers had...the 9mm obiviously had not enough power to push the BG backwards...in the 30s...when big-name criminals were making headlines...some metal-piercing rounds were developed and factory loaded for the 38 special and 45 acp...resulted in penetration ability very close to the 357...
LAPD issued and allowed only buckshot at the time of the LA incident.
I guarantee you that with some goos 1oz slugs, it would have ended quite quickly. I routinely make 100yd shots with my 870 during training, and have made 200yd shots before. If you learn and know the capabilities and limitations of the weapon, there is nothing more versatile or formidable.
I guarantee you that with some goos 1oz slugs, it would have ended quite quickly. I routinely make 100yd shots with my 870 during training, and have made 200yd shots before. If you learn and know the capabilities and limitations of the weapon, there is nothing more versatile or formidable.
John,
It's conjectural. From all I saw in all the angles the tapes showed, ranges were anywhere from 50 yards early on to over 100 as it progressed. Hits at those distances can be made with slugs, as LD points out, but usually with better sights than most departments issue, and slugs lose energy quicker than more streamlined projectiles. A hit on armor at 100 yards probably would not take a determined man down (excluding a head or ankle strike), and those two were very determined.
The officers responding were so grossly outgunned from the start that it was amazing more people didn't die that day. They simply could not get close enough to do any good with what they had till right up to the end. Peripheral hits on the escape car that disabled it, and other delaying factors eventually ended the thing. The conclusion was inevitable, there was no escape, but it could most likely have been ended much sooner with more effective police armament.
Denis
It's conjectural. From all I saw in all the angles the tapes showed, ranges were anywhere from 50 yards early on to over 100 as it progressed. Hits at those distances can be made with slugs, as LD points out, but usually with better sights than most departments issue, and slugs lose energy quicker than more streamlined projectiles. A hit on armor at 100 yards probably would not take a determined man down (excluding a head or ankle strike), and those two were very determined.
The officers responding were so grossly outgunned from the start that it was amazing more people didn't die that day. They simply could not get close enough to do any good with what they had till right up to the end. Peripheral hits on the escape car that disabled it, and other delaying factors eventually ended the thing. The conclusion was inevitable, there was no escape, but it could most likely have been ended much sooner with more effective police armament.
Denis
As an oficer, I see very few circumstances where full auto weapons would be required. Therefore, I feel that if the general public cant own them, neither sould the departments. Just an opinion.
However, 99.99999% of officers are less well armed than the majprity of this board. We have the same rights to own firearms that you do, and the same rights to defend ourselves. Along with those rights, we have the added responsibility to defuse violent situations, make risky arrests, and recover property. Occasionally there is a real need for "paramilitary" tactics and equipment. Still, the equipment used is normally no different thatn you can buy as a non-LEO. (We are all civilians, so I dont use that term).
I feel that the ideal setup ina patrol car is a good, quality, rifle or ghost ring sighted shotgun, and a patrol RIFLE, something along the lines of a M1A carbine. For me, the AR fills a void that doesnt exist. I can see where it would be handy, but I devote the time to practice with my 870 to assure that I am confident within 100yds. Anything over that, I can seek cover until someone with e RIFLE can arrive, or I can get closer.
However, 99.99999% of officers are less well armed than the majprity of this board. We have the same rights to own firearms that you do, and the same rights to defend ourselves. Along with those rights, we have the added responsibility to defuse violent situations, make risky arrests, and recover property. Occasionally there is a real need for "paramilitary" tactics and equipment. Still, the equipment used is normally no different thatn you can buy as a non-LEO. (We are all civilians, so I dont use that term).
I feel that the ideal setup ina patrol car is a good, quality, rifle or ghost ring sighted shotgun, and a patrol RIFLE, something along the lines of a M1A carbine. For me, the AR fills a void that doesnt exist. I can see where it would be handy, but I devote the time to practice with my 870 to assure that I am confident within 100yds. Anything over that, I can seek cover until someone with e RIFLE can arrive, or I can get closer.
Hollywood Shootout
Look at the Hollywood shootout with two body armor wearing bank robbers. Look at the Red Lake school murders. Look at Tyler Texas. All involved criminals wearing body armor.
Police issue pistols and shotguns are not going to make it through body armor.
A .223 rifle round will make it through armor and has increased range.
The sight of criminals shrugging off hits due to body armor is the only thing needed to justify the use of a rifle over the shotgun. What held us back on this was the image of the evil black guns. If anything, since 9/11, the public is more accepting of seeing ARs in the open.
Look at the Hollywood shootout with two body armor wearing bank robbers. Look at the Red Lake school murders. Look at Tyler Texas. All involved criminals wearing body armor.
Police issue pistols and shotguns are not going to make it through body armor.
A .223 rifle round will make it through armor and has increased range.
The sight of criminals shrugging off hits due to body armor is the only thing needed to justify the use of a rifle over the shotgun. What held us back on this was the image of the evil black guns. If anything, since 9/11, the public is more accepting of seeing ARs in the open.
Not to be arrogant, but I guarantee that the LA issue could have been resolved with slugs. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind. A shotgun with good ammo that has been proven to shoot in an individual shotgun will print cloverleaf groups at 50 yards. Been there, done that. My 870 likes Winchester Ranger 10z slugs and PMCs.
Headshots would not have been an issue at the ranges encountered at that shootout. The real problem at that time was LAPD policy, and the stupidity involved that did not issue slugs to the officers.
The AR is a fine wepon, but it doesnt do anything that a Shotgun or a .30 cal rifle wont do. Poodleshooter seems to come to mind.
Headshots would not have been an issue at the ranges encountered at that shootout. The real problem at that time was LAPD policy, and the stupidity involved that did not issue slugs to the officers.
The AR is a fine wepon, but it doesnt do anything that a Shotgun or a .30 cal rifle wont do. Poodleshooter seems to come to mind.
one thing people seem to forget about the amor issue....
Yes a slug will not penetrate armor....sooooo....would you still want to get hit with one while wearing it? That tremendous force of energy is all still exerted on your body, but instead of penetration, you have a tremendous amount of blunt force trauma that should probably be enough to knock the other person down and do other nasty things like break bones and rupture organs. Same with buckshot (to an extent) at closs range.
I don't think it is like..."hey I've got on body armor!!" ...*slug hits in chest...."Hahahahaha, is that the best you got!"
Plus, doesn't teh Military still use them (shotguns) for CQB like urban settings?
I think the AR-15 has its place in law enforcement, but I suppose when the average officer is faced with that need....he is probably gonna need some serious backup (Swat?).
Yes a slug will not penetrate armor....sooooo....would you still want to get hit with one while wearing it? That tremendous force of energy is all still exerted on your body, but instead of penetration, you have a tremendous amount of blunt force trauma that should probably be enough to knock the other person down and do other nasty things like break bones and rupture organs. Same with buckshot (to an extent) at closs range.
I don't think it is like..."hey I've got on body armor!!" ...*slug hits in chest...."Hahahahaha, is that the best you got!"
Plus, doesn't teh Military still use them (shotguns) for CQB like urban settings?
I think the AR-15 has its place in law enforcement, but I suppose when the average officer is faced with that need....he is probably gonna need some serious backup (Swat?).
Roy,
For some reason the idea of police with effective weaponry seems to scare you.
I was the first man at my newly created department in the early 1980s to buy my own shotgun for work. It rode in the car with me daily till I sold it & bought a better shotgun later on. I can't count the number of times I found myself crouching behind a car, a fire hydrant, a bush, a shack, etc, with my shotgun at 50-100 yards while the other guy had a scoped rifle that could have killed me at 200 yards. During such moments, I ALWAYS wished (BOY, did I wish!) for a rifle myself, and as soon as the department finally authorized them, I semi-retired my shotgun & carried an AR15 till I completely retired myself.
SWAT teams with all the fancy stuff are neat, but where I worked the SWAT guys were at the very least 30 minutes out, and in the meantime while somebody was making the executive armchair decision to initiate the callout & generate assembly, there us frontline guys were trying to stay alive with limited weapons.
You've obviously never been in such a spot, but I can tell you that if you were, you'd want the best life-saving equipment possible in your hands to get you home at the end of the shift.
The first cop on the scene is the one who's most likely to get an instant hostile reaction, and he or she's the one who needs adequate armament to handle it.
In my case it wasn't to be cool or faddish, it was very simply an honest evaluation of the two weapons from the sheer utility viewpoint. I worked the second largest city in my state, with lots of residential areas and open fields. With the shotgun I had 8 rounds inside with slow reloading from six carried on the Side Saddle outside, I had to make a choice of which ammo type to carry loaded (slug or buck) based on the probabilities of engagement distances, switching from buck (normally carried based on the majority percentages of encounter distances) to slug is relatively slow if greater ranging is required, heavy rounds & normally not many of them carried on the gun or the body for sustained engagements, and the relatively mediocre accuracy at distance (compared to a rifle). With the AR I had two 20-round mags on board, a very quick reload if necessary, it was shorter than the shotgun, it could handle anything from 10 feet to 200 yards using the same ammo already in the gun, and accuracy was easy and perfectly adequate out to 200 yards. Low recoil for quick followup shots was also a plus.
If you look at it as a matter of choosing & using a superior tool across the board in getting a particular job done for those whose turf indicates it, instead of a method of subjugation of "the people" by the "occupying force" in uniform, it's just using equipment better suited to getting a task completed.
I don't knock the shotgun in any way, I still carry one periodically when I'm out in the wilds and the terrain may hold large cats or hostile dog-like critters and rattlers. There is no better close-range fight stopper available to the average citizen. For city cops or other areas where the percentages indicate close encounters, they're usually more than adequate. But, for more utility I chose the AR & still would if I were still working. It's just more flexible.
Another consideration is that the shotgun recoil is not tolerated well by a lot of people in uniform today, and if you're a small to medium statured person & you hate the thing, you'll rarely do well with it or depend on it as much as you should.
Roy, it's a violent world, and regardless of your apparent fears of armed police, they need the right tools to get the job done. Full auto is seldom necessary, but the ability to defend against both the two-man armored robbery team with automatic rifles and the wife-beater holed up in the house with a deer rifle is.
As noted quite well above, the purpose of our police is to maintain order, and inevitably that makes somebody at the scene they're called to unhappy. If that somebody's unhappy enough, guns come out, or may already be out. If guns come out, it's idiotic to say "We don't want our cops to have anything better than their predecessors did 100 years ago." As an ex-cop and reasonably cognitive regular citizen now, I want our badges to make it home alive at the end of their day, and they should have the tools to help do that.
LAPD's response to that shootout, as I understand it, was initially to authorize sergeants to carry .223s. Again, the sergeant ain't the first one there, and I can tell you it's a long wait trying to hold out for the cavalry to show up.
Denis
For some reason the idea of police with effective weaponry seems to scare you.
I was the first man at my newly created department in the early 1980s to buy my own shotgun for work. It rode in the car with me daily till I sold it & bought a better shotgun later on. I can't count the number of times I found myself crouching behind a car, a fire hydrant, a bush, a shack, etc, with my shotgun at 50-100 yards while the other guy had a scoped rifle that could have killed me at 200 yards. During such moments, I ALWAYS wished (BOY, did I wish!) for a rifle myself, and as soon as the department finally authorized them, I semi-retired my shotgun & carried an AR15 till I completely retired myself.
SWAT teams with all the fancy stuff are neat, but where I worked the SWAT guys were at the very least 30 minutes out, and in the meantime while somebody was making the executive armchair decision to initiate the callout & generate assembly, there us frontline guys were trying to stay alive with limited weapons.
You've obviously never been in such a spot, but I can tell you that if you were, you'd want the best life-saving equipment possible in your hands to get you home at the end of the shift.
The first cop on the scene is the one who's most likely to get an instant hostile reaction, and he or she's the one who needs adequate armament to handle it.
In my case it wasn't to be cool or faddish, it was very simply an honest evaluation of the two weapons from the sheer utility viewpoint. I worked the second largest city in my state, with lots of residential areas and open fields. With the shotgun I had 8 rounds inside with slow reloading from six carried on the Side Saddle outside, I had to make a choice of which ammo type to carry loaded (slug or buck) based on the probabilities of engagement distances, switching from buck (normally carried based on the majority percentages of encounter distances) to slug is relatively slow if greater ranging is required, heavy rounds & normally not many of them carried on the gun or the body for sustained engagements, and the relatively mediocre accuracy at distance (compared to a rifle). With the AR I had two 20-round mags on board, a very quick reload if necessary, it was shorter than the shotgun, it could handle anything from 10 feet to 200 yards using the same ammo already in the gun, and accuracy was easy and perfectly adequate out to 200 yards. Low recoil for quick followup shots was also a plus.
If you look at it as a matter of choosing & using a superior tool across the board in getting a particular job done for those whose turf indicates it, instead of a method of subjugation of "the people" by the "occupying force" in uniform, it's just using equipment better suited to getting a task completed.
I don't knock the shotgun in any way, I still carry one periodically when I'm out in the wilds and the terrain may hold large cats or hostile dog-like critters and rattlers. There is no better close-range fight stopper available to the average citizen. For city cops or other areas where the percentages indicate close encounters, they're usually more than adequate. But, for more utility I chose the AR & still would if I were still working. It's just more flexible.
Another consideration is that the shotgun recoil is not tolerated well by a lot of people in uniform today, and if you're a small to medium statured person & you hate the thing, you'll rarely do well with it or depend on it as much as you should.
Roy, it's a violent world, and regardless of your apparent fears of armed police, they need the right tools to get the job done. Full auto is seldom necessary, but the ability to defend against both the two-man armored robbery team with automatic rifles and the wife-beater holed up in the house with a deer rifle is.
As noted quite well above, the purpose of our police is to maintain order, and inevitably that makes somebody at the scene they're called to unhappy. If that somebody's unhappy enough, guns come out, or may already be out. If guns come out, it's idiotic to say "We don't want our cops to have anything better than their predecessors did 100 years ago." As an ex-cop and reasonably cognitive regular citizen now, I want our badges to make it home alive at the end of their day, and they should have the tools to help do that.
LAPD's response to that shootout, as I understand it, was initially to authorize sergeants to carry .223s. Again, the sergeant ain't the first one there, and I can tell you it's a long wait trying to hold out for the cavalry to show up.
Denis
Who Controls The Police?
I have said, that police departments need to have special tactical units to handle extreme situations. I know that 99.99% of LEO's are as concerned about civil rights as anyone. But, the police are part of the government. I am uneasy about having an overly armed police force. When police respond to an incident, I thought their goal was to arrest and detain. I thought that our court system was the entity that would dole out and carry out any due punishment. I realize our justice system is screwy. But I also don't want to head towards a police state either.
I have said, that police departments need to have special tactical units to handle extreme situations. I know that 99.99% of LEO's are as concerned about civil rights as anyone. But, the police are part of the government. I am uneasy about having an overly armed police force. When police respond to an incident, I thought their goal was to arrest and detain. I thought that our court system was the entity that would dole out and carry out any due punishment. I realize our justice system is screwy. But I also don't want to head towards a police state either.
Roy, we have tried to show our point, but I fear your tin foil is bit tight. We are not judge, nor jury, but we are responsible for our own safety, and the safety of others. Our duty is not arrest and detain, but the protection of society as a whole. If arrest serves that goal, then that is wonderful. If the perpetrator presents a threat to our lives, or the lives of citizens, then arrest and detain really isnt an option.
I sure the endangered civillians will understand that they simply have to wait while you call someone with a rifle
I got a question...what does a shotgun do that a carbine will not?
Other than breaching or LL munitions...not much
So you can make good shots with your shotgun....the one you practice with
I say if you have joe average policeman shoot the AR and the 870 at ranges of 50 yards and over you are gonna see much better results with the AR
(especially with an optic)
There is a reason that the military doesn't arm everyone with shotguns
And it is not because they are afraid to hurt people
The shotgun fills a very narrow niche between handgun range and when you NEED a rifle....notice I said need
You can easily deploy the carbine at anything from contact distance to 300 yards.
And you don't need to change ammo types as the range increases
(Although for LE use I do not think anything but slugs should be issued)
And they (slugs)do tend to put people down fast and hard
But so does a rifle at the same ...and extended ranges
And a single mag in the rifle....with one more as backup is more than you are ever likely to need
So other than nostalgia.....most choose the carbine
I got a question...what does a shotgun do that a carbine will not?
Other than breaching or LL munitions...not much
So you can make good shots with your shotgun....the one you practice with
I say if you have joe average policeman shoot the AR and the 870 at ranges of 50 yards and over you are gonna see much better results with the AR
(especially with an optic)
There is a reason that the military doesn't arm everyone with shotguns
And it is not because they are afraid to hurt people
The shotgun fills a very narrow niche between handgun range and when you NEED a rifle....notice I said need
You can easily deploy the carbine at anything from contact distance to 300 yards.
And you don't need to change ammo types as the range increases
(Although for LE use I do not think anything but slugs should be issued)
And they (slugs)do tend to put people down fast and hard
But so does a rifle at the same ...and extended ranges
And a single mag in the rifle....with one more as backup is more than you are ever likely to need
So other than nostalgia.....most choose the carbine
What does a poodleshooter do that a .308 doesnt? Nothing. I feel that the Shotgun fills the void between the handgun and the Rifle.
I personally have issues with engagements outside of the effective range of the shotgun in many cases. Not saying they dont happen, but they are extremely rare, and can often be cordoned off, and the proper personnell called in to deal with those. In cases where this is not possible, a full caliber wepon os much more appropriate.
I do see the training issues you describe. I counter that with the notion that ones lack or refusal to train should not be countered with equipment that is easier to operate, but with increased training. There was a day when firearms training was a cornerstone of police traing. Now it is an afterthought.
I personally have issues with engagements outside of the effective range of the shotgun in many cases. Not saying they dont happen, but they are extremely rare, and can often be cordoned off, and the proper personnell called in to deal with those. In cases where this is not possible, a full caliber wepon os much more appropriate.
I do see the training issues you describe. I counter that with the notion that ones lack or refusal to train should not be countered with equipment that is easier to operate, but with increased training. There was a day when firearms training was a cornerstone of police traing. Now it is an afterthought.
Second Amendment
What was the purpose of having the second amendment in our constitution?
I was under the impression it was to have an armed society to counteract our leaders if they decided that they should become kings or emperors and take our liberties away from us. Having armed citizens would make such a leader's goals tougher to carry out.
Now, here in California, our gun rights are being eroded. They are doing it slowly but surely. At the same time our police officers are being armed more and more. This might make me sound paranoid, but are not police agencies a part of our government. Isn't this going against what our founders had in mind? If the citizens in California get reduced to having to use flintlocks for shooting sports and our police departments have full, or even semi-auto rifles does it not unbalance things between the people and governemnt even more than it is? I know, our government is too stable to turn on its people. I hope you are right, but I think we are on a slick surface.
What was the purpose of having the second amendment in our constitution?
I was under the impression it was to have an armed society to counteract our leaders if they decided that they should become kings or emperors and take our liberties away from us. Having armed citizens would make such a leader's goals tougher to carry out.
Now, here in California, our gun rights are being eroded. They are doing it slowly but surely. At the same time our police officers are being armed more and more. This might make me sound paranoid, but are not police agencies a part of our government. Isn't this going against what our founders had in mind? If the citizens in California get reduced to having to use flintlocks for shooting sports and our police departments have full, or even semi-auto rifles does it not unbalance things between the people and governemnt even more than it is? I know, our government is too stable to turn on its people. I hope you are right, but I think we are on a slick surface.