Why Law enforcement embraces smoothbores?

In my former department, we had Mossberg 590's, with ghost ring sights (not necessary IMO), standard length mag tubes, Speedfeed stocks and 18" cylinder bore barrels. It was optional to carry one, and only myself and one other officer did.

Only 5 of us were qualified to carry AR's. They had to be in .223. I carried mine in the trunk in a hardcase. The shotgun was the one which rode with me in the rack. I carried 00 Buck loads in the mag tube, and 4 slugs in the speedfeed stock.

In most situations, the shotgun will be more effective than the rifle. I wouldn't waste my time carrying a pistol caliber carbine. It does nothing out to 100 yards I can't do with my issue gun. Try hitting a perp in the torso with your pistol caliber carbine or .223, then a slug or shotgun. Much more energy transfer with the shotgun.

That said, I don't like cylinder bore for police work, either. At 25 yards, our shotguns couldn't keep all the pellets on a downsized MA "Q" target. I bought my own Mossy 590 with a 20" cylinder bore barrel, extended mag tube and standard bead sights (fine out to 100 yards), and I'm having it threaded for choke tubes. I'll be using a full-choke.
 
With a full choke and #00, look for you patterns to become even more predictable than the cylinder bore is, due to pellet deformation. I also cringe to think what will happen when the tiem comes to shoot a slug through that gun without the time to pull the tube out. IMO< you shouldnt be using buck at those kind of ranges in the first place, but that simply opinion.

I dont even carry Buckshot in my shotgun. My 870 goes to work with 6 slugs in the tube, and six on the sidesaddle. I feel confident with any situation from 1 yd to 100yds.
 
If you look at hunting shotguns and experiences, slugs are usually more accurate with a tighter choke. I know many people, myself included, who use a screw-in full Remchoke in my slug barrel with excellent success. No problems taking the choke out afterwards. Remember, the slug is made of soft lead, forms to the bore, and a tighter bore usually means better accuracy.

When testing my 870 (I have a factory 18" barrel, rifle sights and Remchokes), the full choke tube cut the pattern size in half, keeping all pellets on the MA "Q" target, where cylinder bore would not. I did try an extra-full "Trap" choke, and it did deform the pellets too much, causing "flyers".

I bought a PD trade-in Ithaca M37 riot gun with an extended mag. It came from the factory with a full-choke, and performed very well. I didn't think it was wise to carry something that I could slam-fire on duty, though.

If you read up on testing, you will find that choked shotguns perform very well with buckshot. There was an article somewhere in the past 6 months or so detailing the pattern differences. Basically, with a choke, you can extend the useable range of buckshot by another 20 yards while keeping a good pattern.

Slugs have their purpose, but so does buckshot. That's why I carry both.
 
Simple

Because shotguns cause rapid incapacitation of whatever they're hit with faster than a rifle or a pistol at ranges under 25 yards.

That's why the sissy Europeans think it's "barbaric".

-Morgan
 
Shotguns are used for close range encounters because of the rapid incapacitation that it causes...also, if an innocent bystander is hit with a 00BUCK pellet at 100 yards, it is far less likely to kill or seriously wound them than say a .45, .40, 9mm or .357 at 100 yards.
 
I guess I've spent too much time in the past deer hunting with shotguns. I always wanted as tight a pattern at as long a distance as possible. That meant using full choke and trying different shot sizes. Sometimes 000 or #4 would be better, depending on the shotgun. Some guns wouldn't pattern anything.

I brushed all that aside when putting together a HD shotgun. I used a 20" IC barrel with rifle sights because that's what 'everybody' used. My safe range is under 20 yards with all the ammo I've tried so far. Slugs are however are very accurate out to 75+ yards. Ideally, I want ~12" pattern out to about 25 yds with 00 or 000. My next project is going to get the barrel threaded and try chokes until that is achieved. My guess is that a Modified will do the trick. I've still got several older shotguns that will do that out past 40 yards with a Full choke.

The only reason I've tolerated this setup so far is that my primary needs are for an in-house defense weapon and in my smallish home the possible ranges are short. But I admit to being a little embarrassed by my shotgun's patterns with buckshot; but, then again I should have known this given my experience with hunting shotguns.

I'm not a slide racker ;) but with that big holed barrel and a SureFire light mounted under it, it IS an intimidating weapon. There is only one end of it I want to be on.
 
I don't think cops should have anything more than a shotgun. Way too many of them think that they are Special Forces now. Swat team, maybe, but certainly not your average patrol cop. Ever notice how many ND and AD they have? Pistols are bad enough, I sure don't want them doing that with AR15 or M1As.
 
I don't think cops should have anything more than a shotgun. Way too many of them think that they are Special Forces now. Swat team, maybe, but certainly not your average patrol cop. Ever notice how many ND and AD they have? Pistols are bad enough, I sure don't want them doing that with AR15 or M1As.
Click to expand...

boy...you're going to get some opposition on this one...i think i'll stay neutral...
 
Well, I have to say that, in a way, I agree with that statement. For one reason only. Police are not sufficiently trained, for the most part, with the firearms they are issued. And, most do not feel the need to persue training on their own if they cannot shoot.

Our department had 5 officers authorized to carry AR's. I was the only one who could shoot! I brought two of them to the range to familiarize them with the AR, and to sight them in. One of the two did excellent and wanted to learn. She has always been an excellent shot, and asked for help with any questions. The other was just very poor. He would not listen to me when I tried showing him how to stand and hold the AR. He was standing straight forward, no leaning, with the buttstock OVER his shoulder. Obviously, he didn't hit anything. I couldn't do much about it since he was one of my superiors.

Am I opposed to LE carrying AR's? No, as long as they are adequately trained with them. Hell, I'm opposed to someone who is incompetant with a handgun carrying one!
 
I don't think cops should have anything more than a shotgun. Way too many of them think that they are Special Forces now. Swat team, maybe, but certainly not your average patrol cop. Ever notice how many ND and AD they have? Pistols are bad enough, I sure don't want them doing that with AR15 or M1As.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll bite.

How many ND's/AD's do we have? I really haven't heard of too awful many. But, then, I'm just your piddly run of the mill assistant Department firearms instructor Reserve cop. What do I know?

And, since you're on the subject, I'm sure that you are aware that a LOT of cops have a military background. To be specific, a HUGE proportion of them in Western Washington have been SF, Rangers or Marine Recon or Infantry. Moreover, quite a few of them are honest combat veterans. As a matter of fact, I know two cops who were bona-fide SEALs. So, to answer your claim, these guys don't HAVE to think that they are SF--THEY ARE.

May I ask respectfully what qualifies you to make the statement that you just made? Just curious.
 
situation dictates........

That said - how about the right tool for the task at hand.........

I think the shotgun has it's limitations but at close combat in certain situations it's golden.... I for one felt I had a friend when I had one in my paws. Situation dictates reaction and what your using to stop a situation from going worse. 9 projectiles vs 1 at close range with a BG whom intends to finish you shift early for you........ hmmmmmm let me think 20-30 yards against an armed BG whom is trying to kill myself or my partner yea sounds like a good time for 00 buck to me. :D
 
I'm not saying that, in your area, there are a log of SF and ex-military officers, but that's not true for much of the LE community. Yes, overall, there are a large percentage of former military, but that does not automatically make them competant with firearms.

I was never in the military, but just about all of my friends were. One of them was a range officer. He said that most of the soldiers he qualified and trained, with both the AR and Beretta, were scary at best. If you were not raised and trained around guns, 3 or 4 years of military service does not make you a capable shot.

One of the younger officers on the department was ex-military when we were issued the AR's. Another officer asked him, since he knew of his military service, what "that thing sticking out the side of the gun" was. He was referring to the forward assist. The ex-military officer's response was "I think it has something to do with disassembly, ask Hawgleg" (he actually used my real name, though).

In fact, the officer who asked about the forward assist also served in the military for 6 years, and was the officer who I mentioned earlier that would not listen and was putting the buttstock above his shoulder, while standing forward.

Like I said, military service means absolutely nothing when it comes to proper gun handling. Yes, most learn something, but some don't. It does not replace proper training when you are issued a firearm.

Plus, being a former Special Forces, Recon, Seal, etc, does not mean it should carry over to your patrol duties. It's a different job, interacting differently with people. If they still think they are SF, maybe they should find another job. It gives cops a bad name.
 
Hawglegg 44- I agree

Cops and the military largely recieve inadequate small arms training in these days where accountants and budgets run Departments.

Military response is also quite different- the Police officer is constrained by minimum force requirements and guns are a last resort, there are also likely to be a lot of non hostiles in the target area- to the Soldier you turn to the gun first and non hostiles are not such a problem.

Soldiers wearing Police uniforms worry me unless they have received an awful lot of retraining as when you are pumped up you react on instinct and as a result of drill and a ex soldier- cop is likely to get someone killed inadvertently and then personally pay the price for it before the Courts.
 
Are you people such weapons experts that you can make blanket statements that are offensive to not only those of us that had our $%^ on the line the past couple decades all over the planet, but still have it on the line in a different color uniform?

Why would you assume that because I and others served in the military we would be more likely to get someone killed inadvertently? Do you have anything remotely factual to prove what you are saying here?

Is it possible that after having served our country for twenty-one years that I would actually be mature enough to handle dangerous situations more calmly than a twenty-something officer that has two or three months of academy training?

I’ve owned and fired weapons of every imaginable type and caliber for over forty years. I have been a line safety officer, a range safety officer, and OIC of ranges firing .38 Cal, M1911, M9 (9mm), M16, M203, M60, and M2 upwards of four times a year over my entire military career. I fired M60D’s from UH-1’s and UH-60’s for more than a dozen years. Add to that several times where I have fired the weapons belonging to our NATO allies to include the MP5. Incidentally, the German G3 and MG3 are not easy to qualify with, but I did it all three times I was given the opportunity. During my first attempt only two of the forty-five people that shot qualified, I was one of them. Lastly, add to that several chances to fire the weapons our enemies carry to include the AK47.

In October 2004 two kids stole an unmarked patrol car that happened to have a shotgun in the trunk. They then stole a second car and shot a State Patrol Officer’s cruiser when he attempted to stop them. They managed to get away from him and hid out in an area that covered several square miles. I was one of the first officers on the perimeter and thankfully carrying an AR15, because I knew that at a minimum they were carrying a shotgun with 00 buck.

With your line of thinking you would expect that I should have confronted these two suspects carrying a weapon with equal stopping power as to what they were carrying. I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make any sense to anyone other than those few people that are named as beneficiaries on my life insurance policy.

I do live in the middle of nowhere, but that is also where the manufacturers of Methamphetamine trade for Cocaine, Heroin, Marijuana, and stolen goods. These people already own technological equipment far superior to our own; would you have us outgunned as well?
 
43061-

You took me all wrong, and if you reread my post, I think you will understand what I've said, if you were directing your response to me.

All I'm saying is that you cannot automatically assume or suggest that everyone who is ex-military is adequately trained with firearms, AR15's or others. Out of the five of us who qualified with the AR, the highest score came from someone who has no military training (me), and the two lowest scores came from the two officers who had military training. To be honest, they had trouble hitting a silouhette target at 25 yards!

Yes, I am saying that officers should be allowed to carry whatever they want to, as long as they are capable of firing it safely and accurately. That requires training, which most PD's can't afford or do not feel is necessary.

And, I NEVER said that an ex-military LE is any more prone to shoot someone than anyone else. I'm talking about interaction with the people you are sworn to protect, and I AM NOT MAKING A BLANKET STATEMENT, either. Some ex-military LE's I work with are some of the best officers I've met. The statement I was counteracting was the one in an earlier post which said that "ex-Special Forces have to think the are SF, because they are." Sorry, but they are not, and SF attitudes don't belong anywhere in LE work, except for a few specialized SWAT teams, etc. Someone who acts like a SF soldier out on regular patrol gives the image of the "Ghestapo" -WHICH IS NOT MY OUTLOOK, JUST WHAT HAS BEEN COMPLAINED TO LOCAL TOWN GOVERNMENTS BY CITIZENS. You need to be understand, interactive (ever hear of Community Policing?), but still stern and take charge when the situation arises.

Police cannot be viewed by the public as unapproachable and any honest citizen should not fell intimidated by cops. That is what happens when they are viewed as military special forces instead of police officers.
 
Hawgleg-

My reply was not directed at you alone. I was replying to the overall tone this thread had taken. Admittedly there are officers, some of which are ex-military that don’t know as much as they should about the weapons they are using and don’t feel a need to practice between annual qualifications. It’s not about the military, it is about the person. If they didn’t care to learn about weapons while in the military would they suddenly start caring because they became cops?

The Special Forces attitude is not exclusive to ex-military. I have seen officers that never served a day with that type of behavior.

The truth is that some citizens do not like law enforcement. Some citizens don’t like guns. And, some citizens don’t like law enforcement having guns, especially nonpolitically correct looking weapons like an AR15. Do you have any idea how many citizens think my AR15s are machineguns? I don’t know the number, but I know I hear it quite often. I try to limit the number of people that see them for that reason. There is no need to parade our firepower around in front of people, it serves no purpose.

I totally believe in Community Policing. I believe I am one of the most approachable law enforcement officers I know. My wife will tell you I am too approachable and she may very well be correct. I also believe that if a person is not a complete person before they pin on a badge and pick up a gun, they won’t be a complete person with them.

I can’t finish my train of thought right now, I have to go assist another officer with a citizen that believes God told her to steal a crucifix out of a church.
 
awfully touchy it seems. I still feel that way too many cops are over militarized. As has been mentioned, there is a huge difference in the mission of soldiers and cops. Too many have the attitude that they are not there to police, but to be, well, swat guys. I am so tired of cops refering to the 'rest of us' as "civilians".
I appreciate the service to our Country by our armed forces, and I appreciate the service to the community by our police. Being in the military, does not always mean you will make a good cop though.
Police do have a lot of ND and AD. Maybe its because they handle their sidearms a lot, maybe its just poor training and concentration. We had the Chief of the South Miami with an AD in his office not long ago, and a DEA agent put a round from his Glock through his leg, while showing a class room of kids how to clear a gun. Sillly stuff, but it happens way too often. Yes, I judge cops differently than I judge other citizens.
The average cop on the beat does not need an AR.
 
Mannlicher

Your responeses could cause me to be a little angry about your attitude but nothing short of constructive is really in order.

Law enforcement has moved towards "para military" training models (in general) for some applications, for sound reasons. Accordingly, the necessity of matching weapon requirements to field conditions is always the best order of the day for both law enforcement and military.

A discussion of how you feel about what weapons officers are trained to use matters not....rather, what should matter, is that officers are afforded good equipment and properly trained to use their equipment. That may include special units with special weapons and also the addition of special weapons on a as needed basis by the regular patrolman. Few departments these days spend the money for equipment and extensive training without good cause or the reasonable expectation that the officers will apply the training they receive.

Your more than welcome to hold the attitude you have expressed regarding what you think officers shouldn't have.....but it nothing more than a opinion and I recgonize that. Having walked in their shoes, I understand why changes have come about in their equipment, and I am glad to see it.

All this being said, does not mean that officers should be any less approachable, caring, compassionate or human than any one else and in fact, many of them go out of their way to volunteer time for all sorts of programs for kids etc. etc.

Approachability while in the line of duty seems to be a blend of many things and I can honestly say, the very best tool at my disposal was my people skills and I am certain that is true for many officers today. Accordingly, those officers who do not have or are unable to develope excellent people skills and caring for the public they serve have a much harder time in the law enforcement profession.



end of rant

Paul
 
Police do have a lot of ND and AD. Maybe its because they handle their sidearms a lot, maybe its just poor training and concentration.

Yes, cops do seem to have a higher rate of ND's than non-LE's, from my observations anyway. Here are a few good examples:

1- In the city next to me, and officer was "cleaning" his weapon while on duty. Right there I find it to be BS since I would never disassemble my sidearm when the need to use it my arise at any second. But, past that, it was a Sigma, where, like a Glock, you have to press the trigger to remove the slide. Well, he forgot to clear the chamber and shot the floor.

2- Another city north of me, an officer was cleaning his Glock after annual range day. Again, he did the same bonehead move that brain surgeon #1 did and shot his floor. The only problem was that he lived in an apartment with a family down below. Luckily, the bullet didn't penetrate completely through, but a chunk of plaster did fall off the ceiling, right in the middle of a baby's room. Yes, he lost his job over that incident.

3- Now, out to the Berkshires. After a short, but adreniline filled persuit, a training officer and his trainee begin to exit their cruiser for a felony stop. The training officer removed his pistol from his holster, but this rocket scientist had his finger on the trigger. When he squeezed with his left hand to open the cruiser door, he also squeezed with his right hand, shooting his trainee in the leg. Both he and his Chief blamed the Glock pistol because it didn't have an external safety on it.

4- How about a class at the police academy. An instructor, who was biased against Glocks because you have to pull the trigger to remove the slide was demonstrating this to a class during a "firearms safety" course. Well he ended up shooting the wall. Yes, he was ex-military, too.

5- Now, an officer posted at dispatch one time was "cleaning" his pistol, too. He shot his keyboard.

When I look at these incidences, I can't help but think about my friends and myself, who have been raised around guns, and our safe handling skills. None of us have EVER had a ND (I don't believe there is such a thing as an AD, unless the handgun breaks and fires with no human contact). It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the amount of handling of the firearm. I handle my guns more than any other cop I know, and mine never go off unless I want them to!

I am so tired of cops refering to the 'rest of us' as "civilians".

Sorry. Will you be happier if I use the term "non-LE"? If you are offended, please tell us the politically correct term you would like us to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top