Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/9/2006 7:24:59 AM EDT
I am a member of a large, state wide law enforcement agency who currently has available to Department personnel Colt 6520 LE patrol rifles. I am also a Department certified Patrol Rifle Instructor/Firearms Instructor. Our current issued arms include the Beretta 96D .40 S&W, and the Remington 870 and 11-87.

Currently, the regulations of our Department dictate that only the Colt 6520 may be purchased by the individuals for duty carry. If the member does not purchase their own rifle, then they are forced to carry the Department issued Colt 6520. I feel this is somewhat discriminatory to me, for several reasons. First, nearly every M16 type rifle is manufactured to Military Secifications. Department of Defense contracts have been given to other major manufacturers of this type of weapon, mostly because of the demand issue. So, I don't think that reliability is the reason for this restriction. I feel, therefore, that the individual should be permitted to purchase a patrol rifle of similar configuration as the Colt 6520, at their own discretion. This means, possibly, saving some money on the process.

In addition to the requirement to carry only the Colt 6520, the Department also regulates the usage of aftermarket accessories, such as rails, lights, vertical grips, etc. I feel this also limits the officer and impedes his or her safety, in that many of these upgrades are meant to aid the officer in difficult situations, such as low light, close quarter combat, etc. Further, these regulations extend to the shotguns as well.

I feel that the Colt 6520 is a good firearm. I have range tested it, shot it, and instructed on it. However, I think that other reasonable, reliable, similarly constructed alternatives are on the market, and that the individual should be allowed the latitude to make an intelligent, informed purchase of an alternative weapon of the same configuration as the Colt 6520.

I am currently soliciting input from several sources for factual information to try and change this regulation. I feel that the officer should have a choice in a patrol rifle, just the same as they have a choice in an off duty weapon. Any hard evidence you could provide, or any documentation that would help me in making an intelligent presentation of these facts would be greatly appreciated.

Please email me directly at dottrz@alltel.net Thanks!
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 1:01:28 PM EDT
How about the price and the fact that Colt just recieved a 600,000+ unit contract with the Military and getting a Colt right now is difficult. Every distributor around me is only selling Colts on allotment. For a short time FN was manufacturing M-4's for the government.
One thing you could use is that most manufacturers are using USGI parts in all of their weapons, same as Colt, and Colt contracts with many of the same sub-contractors for these parts. Many of the manufacturers are using better parts, barrels, trigger groups etc. I know that Rock River Arms uses a Wilson barrel and their own trigger group and many others use E.R. Shaw barrels. All in all their practically the same rifles using the same gas tubes and bolts. Check the individual manufacturers web sites, many of them will tell you exactly where they are getting their parts. You could also use your own department rifle spec. to show as a comparison to other manufacturers. I know that Texas DPS just placed an order with Bushmaster for 6,000 M-4's and they have a contract to manufacture some parts for Colt. Remind them that Government contracts are almost always an industry group effort.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 3:29:32 PM EDT
Leaving a firearm decision up to the individual officer can open the department up to all kinds of liability issues.

Your issued a certain sidearm because that what the department wants. The same is going to go to for your longuns. Not saying its right, but you need to find out what the powers that be based their decision on.

I'm also a PA LEO, Firearms Instructor (handgun, shotgun and rifle) althought I work for a much smaller (local) department.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 5:15:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PSPFI:
I feel that the Colt 6520 is a good firearm. I have range tested it, shot it, and instructed on it. However, I think that other reasonable, reliable, similarly constructed alternatives are on the market, and that the individual should be allowed the latitude to make an intelligent, informed purchase of an alternative weapon of the same configuration as the Colt 6520.



Start the above letter with "Dear Chief," and articulate the reasons why. There could be a plethora of reasons why your dept has this idiotic rule. Find out what it is and tackle it. Maybe some past Administrator, F.I., Mayor, etc has a 6520 fixation. Maybe nobody has ever asked for an alternative. You'll never know until you ask.
Link Posted: 2/9/2006 5:53:09 PM EDT
My intent is not to allow the other officers to have just ANY other long gun. I think there should be an outline delineating the important features of the AR15, rather than extolling one particular manufacturer's virtues, whatever they may be. As most who are very much more in the know than I am can atest, and many of those points were brought out earlier by other posters, many parts are USGI, and there is very, VERY little to differentiate between the various REPUTABLE manufacturers, except the deal they make with the purchaser. Our rifle is basically a plain jane 6520, collapsible stock, A2 flash hider, and a sling. No frills, no attachments, no modifications. Oh, and a bucking horse logo on the side. Now, transpose a different logo on that lower, and is there really any REAL difference, at least to the negative, between the rifles? Again, deferring to another poster, in many cases the other firearm is superior, with superior components, hand craftsmanship, etc. Hell, here I am, sitting here, preaching to the choir.......maybe I'm just outlining my future arguments.......Hell,
One MAJOR problem I have is that I am a left handed shooter. Granted, there are probably hundreds if not thousands of military operators in the same situation, using gear that is just not an exact fit. But at least they are permitted to compensate for some inadequacies by adding features such as EOTech sights, verticle grips, lights, etc. We don't even have THAT luxury.....I guess it's my department's way of saying, "If we can't afford the ginger bread, you should not have it either..." But at any rate, I think I should be able to pursue possibly purchasing a Stag, merely for the fact that it just suits me better, or whatever other armament along the same lines that I feel fits me better. (No shameless plug for Stag there, guys...)
Link Posted: 2/10/2006 8:09:18 PM EDT
My reply is going to sound pretty bitter but I'm not really that fed up with life itself, just the idiotic decisions Departments make for us. PSPFI and others will know where i'm coming from.

I don't think you are going to get anywhere with getting the options for personal firearms changer. Don't get me wrong I hope you do but I don't see it happening. I too like the Colt brand, it is reliable and has the history. There are others, lets say Bushmaster for arguement, that are equally as good. But they are different. Which will require the FI to be trained in those brands as well. Not going to happen. All because of iability. yes I know they are the same but if you are trained on the Colt 6520 then you just cant use anything else. The people making these decisions are not "Gun guys".

Secondly your department has tested the 6520 extensively and determined it is reliable. We all know that this was done under controlled conditions but lets not get into that now. Are they going to buy a set of Bushmasters to see if they are reliable. Nope. Your department has a hang up with "reliability issues". Just look at the former patrol rifle. Was it unreliable? No. Was there an issue with one or two? Yes and they canned that model unless a few mods were made to personal rifles.

Look at the ammo issue. A few rounds have some issues and there is a big deal about the ammo now.

Just too many minor details changing the whole patrl rifle program and throwing things into a tizzy. Getting them to allow a whole other brand is going to give soebody a heart attack. Good thing we have AED at the station. But the batteries are expiring on those and they haven't looked into getting replacements.

Sorry to vent here. Good luck on any changes. I would be thrilled if you could get options availiable. As others mentioned detailing other departments in the state or other state or federal departments that use another brand or allow various brands would be good. I know that many smaller departments allow many brands as long as they fit some criteria and you can qualify. Not too far from back or off duty weapons.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:41:32 AM EDT
I'm gonna Pi$$ off people here just like I did on my department ( I retired after 20 years in 1994).

I was a firearms instructor, rifle and pistol, Besides the FBI Pistol/shootgun instructors course I attended the FBI and NRA police rifle instructors course. Also I went to the Army Sniper Instructor Course for Police Officers at the Benning School for Boys.

I'm against auto rilfes for the average street cop because they wont take the time to learn to shoot them. If a street cop wants to carry a rifle he should carry a good bolt gun, 223 for urban and 223/308 for rural departments.

You don't need spary and pray rifles in urban areas. Also if you can't hit a head size target with the first shot from a cold rifle that's been riding in the trunk you shouldn't carry a rifle. And you surely dont need a 308 sipping through trailer parks.

Now I supposed I'll be banned from this site but if you set asside your predjuses and think about it you will see my theory has merit.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 11:07:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2006 11:09:05 AM EDT by Bucky145]

Originally Posted By kraigWY:
I'm gonna Pi$$ off people here just like I did on my department ( I retired after 20 years in 1994).

I was a firearms instructor, rifle and pistol, Besides the FBI Pistol/shootgun instructors course I attended the FBI and NRA police rifle instructors course. Also I went to the Army Sniper Instructor Course for Police Officers at the Benning School for Boys.

I'm against auto rilfes for the average street cop because they wont take the time to learn to shoot them. If a street cop wants to carry a rifle he should carry a good bolt gun, 223 for urban and 223/308 for rural departments.

You don't need spary and pray rifles in urban areas. Also if you can't hit a head size target with the first shot from a cold rifle that's been riding in the trunk you shouldn't carry a rifle. And you surely dont need a 308 sipping through trailer parks.

Now I supposed I'll be banned from this site but if you set asside your predjuses and think about it you will see my theory has merit.




The dumbing down of police standards strikes again. Lets not train the "average" officer to shoot, lets give him a gun that he can do less damage with. Kinda like when LEO agencies started carring autos with no thumb safety because some officers could not get the concept of a thumb safety. Lets just give officers a weapon that complete idiots could pull the trigger on. It comes down to training and hiring. If a LEO can not shoot an AR, I would question if they could shoot a bolt rifle, shot gun, and pistol too. Plenty of young military folks learn to shoot after only limited training. Why does the LEO world reject this as too hard for the "average officer".

IMHO it says alot about the confidence in todays "average officers" in the eyes of our administrations. Where have all the cops cops gone? Too many sheep in the LEO world

Edit for SP
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 4:48:42 PM EDT
I can definitely understand why a department would like one particular weapon/manufacturer for a rifle selection fo their department. I am a firearms instructor for my department that has a liberal carry policy. We have officers that carry anything from Sig, Beretta, Glock to Kimber/Colt 1911s. We have recently adopted Sig as a departmental weapon and are purchasing them when the funds become available. For rifles, we have DRMO M-14s, personal AR-15 from all manufacturers, and now we have received DRMO M-16s from the government. From and instructor's viewpoint, I like the idea of one weapons system because you provide straight training across the board. Nothing is more sad, scary, and funny than watching a new guy with a 1911 at the range. Just like the regular population you have guys/gals who keep up with their weapons and training and you have others who only train when they go to the range. I don't think its a matter of "dumbing" down the standards for officers, but the quality of people who are testing for my agency has bordered on sad. By having one manufacturer you can have armorers available and provide training across the board.
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 6:38:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By kraigWY:

I'm against AUTO rilfes for the average street cop because they wont take the time to learn to shoot them. If a street cop wants to carry a rifle he should carry a good bolt gun, 223 for urban and 223/308 for rural departments.

You don't need SPRAY AND PRAY rifles in urban areas. Also if you can't hit a head size target with the first shot from a cold rifle that's been riding in the trunk you shouldn't carry a rifle. And you surely dont need a 308 sipping through trailer parks.




If you are really referring to automatic rifles, AKA machine guns, and spray and pray tactics then I will agree with you. But I'll bet that most departments are issuing or allowing semi-auto only for the patrol guys. This I don't see any problems with. As Bucky said if you can't hit anything with an AR then you probably won't hit anything with a bolt gun. We might as well thrown in shotguns with slugs into that statement and they never were an issue.

Comparing a semi AR to a bolt gun you get a smaller package, especially with a collapsable stock and 16 in barrell. Which is very beneficial to those of us who carry it in the front seat. You get more rounds with faster reloads. I'll agree that it will probably never be used but better to have it if needed.

Yes you may lose a degree of accuracy but I think this topic is about "patrol rifles" not a SWAT type situation. I can't see a patrol type situation being more than 100 yards at the most. Significantly closer would be more common.

As far as the training goes I can only speak for my department. Qualifying with the AR is optional, unlike the pistol or shotguns.(870 and 11-87). We have to hit a target the sixe of a VHS tape at 50 yards. I just guessed at the size so don't hold me to it. Not too difficult for most but some have problems. I feel that is a pretty good qualification requirement. There aren't going to be rounds flying everywhere. Don' hold me to this but I think if we miss once its over andI can't remember how many rounds we shoot.

I just thought I'd throw out some of my thoughts. I don't feel the need to get you kicked off this site yething
Link Posted: 2/12/2006 9:22:49 PM EDT
Sorry for drifting this thread off topic earlier. Rock River seems to be the DEA rifle of choice as of late. Departments around me also use LMT, Bushamster, Rock River, and a few DPMS. To me training to operate any base model AR rifle is the same. So maybe the training issue is not so big.

If your department uses armorers, I can see why they would only want one brand and type rifle. Do personally owned ARs get checked by your department armorers? If checking personally owned rifles is left up to the owner/officer then this may not be a problem for you either. My admin always gets hung up on triggers. I would let them know that only factory triggers would be used.

Use department ammo for obvious reasons.

Like others have said you may have to snoop around to anticpate what they may ask and why. It may be someone just likes Colts. Wish I had hard facts to pass onto you but I do not. Maybe check with the DEA testing for the Rock River or talk to your SWAT guys. Ous use Colts, LMT, and Rock River.

Link Posted: 2/13/2006 12:47:48 PM EDT
Kind of sad they restrict the guys to a certain make and model.

BUT, they are willing to provide it, so why not just be happy with it???

We are officer purchase except some specialized units. So, you want to carry a rifle, then you have to buy it and attend a 40 hour class.
Link Posted: 2/13/2006 1:08:35 PM EDT
Find a rifle that is tested as well as the Colt (MP tested, proof loads, finished to Mil-Spec, Etc) and I will agree with you.



BTW, none exist.
Link Posted: 2/24/2006 7:01:11 PM EDT
Ok, just been reading for a while, and came across this forum. As I have seen from the Commonwealth about our updates- it is usually their way or no way. So I can see you will have an up hill battle. But one other sugestion would be to show them that the military, is fielding different manufacturers (from what I have read), and the fact that most times, these weapons are interchangable. I too understand the importance of one weapon for the department, and PSP can afford to buy thier guys the equipment, but if the State isn't going to issue each of its Troopers this equipment, then they should at least create a reasonable (oops reasonable/commonwealth sorry) choice of other proven reliable rifles. My department issues Glock's to the f/t guys, and p/t guys get to pick thier own. ( I am in hopes the chief forgets this, as I like my sig and wouldnt want to give it up) Same goes for rifles. The officers in the department are in the process of obtaining ar15 style weapons, as long as they are approved by the chief- and we qualify with them, we are good to go. Good luck on trying to convincing the Major to change your policy. Stay safe.
Top Top