Patrol Platform

A friend, reader, and forum reader at the Guncounter forums put forth an idea yesterday that I thought might be interesting to talk about here.

"The Glock has replaced 1911s and other pistols in the hands of the police because a monkey can be trained to operate it and it is reliable even if not properly maintained.

I think the AK might be like the glock of rifles and would serve our police force better than the AR-15s.

In the hands of a trained operator* and when properly maintained the AR is a superior rifle to an AK. The AR is just as reliable, but easier to shoot well, and has a superior control layout. That said, at least 75% of the patrol force out there is incompetent, unmotivated, and downright stupid. Some of them shouldn't be issued anything more than an old 38, and no bullets. They will not undergo the training necessary to achieve proficiency with the operation of an AR, they will not practice with it to benefit from its accuracy, and they will not clean it to ensure its reliability.

The fact of the matter is that our cops are much like the group of people for whom the AK was designed. The reliability is an advantage because they won't maintain them, the lack of accuracy is not an issue since they can't shoot that accurately anyway.

So my argument is that instead of AR-15 rifles, our cops should be issued semi-auto AK-47 pattern rifles. Let the flame-war begin! "

Actually, I almost agree with him here, excepting the (intentionally... this person is a bombthrower by nature) inflammatory description of American patrol officers (there is SOME truth to the concept he's speaking of, but not to the degree he's talking about), and the two major problems that:

1. U.S. Police departments will almost certainly not be politically able to use AK pattern rifles.

I believe this one difficulty is insurmountable. The AK really is through of around the world, and particularly in the media, as a terrorist gun.

The sight of American cops shooting at American citizens (even if they are criminals) with AK pattern rifles, would be entirely politically unacceptable; even if the rifles were U.S. made, and looked nothing like the AK of the middle eastern terrorist etc...

2. An AK pattern rifle is longer, heavier, bulkier, less maneuverable, and more snagprone in vehicles, and tight quarters, than an AR pattern rifle of equivalent barrel length

Though this can be compensated for somewhat, with the right configuration and accessories; it can't be completely mitigated. Being made almost entirely of stamped or milled steel, the AK pattern rifle will always be heavier than the AR pattern rifle; and the receiver of the AK pattern rifle is considerably longer than the AR pattern rifle, and can't really be shortened.

And a few minor issues like:

3. The 7.62x39 round is louder, has more muzzle blast and recoil (though admittedly, not a hell of a lot), and is more likely than 5.56n to overpenetrate through obstacles (as opposed to people... and experience has shown that cops are far more likely to hit things other than people) while retaining wounding potential.

This of course could be compensated for by simply chambering the rifle in 5.56, or 5.45... or for that matter any number of other intermediate chamberings).

4. the AK pattern rifle is generally more difficult to adapt for accessories, adjustable stocks etc...

These accessories are actually very useful to the law enforcement mission and the mission impacting factors, of the patrol carbine. The issue is pretty easily addressed; however, when you do so, the rifle becomes just as expensive as an AR, negating one of the advantages of the AK platform.

Essentially, even excluding the insurmountable political issue; after modifying the AK platform to match the useful aspects of the AR which should be retained for the patrol carbine mission, I don't believe the AK platform presents sufficient advantage... or any advantage really... to warrant adopting the it over the AR.

All that aside... I think this is actually a good opportunity to address a more fundamental issue represented by the entire concept of the law enforcement patrol carbine.

In general, I believe that the U.S. law enforcement mission (at least in urban, and suburban environments, for local law enforcement) is better served by the patrol shotgun, than the patrol carbine.

Though I believe the patrol carbine is a useful tool to have, and we should retain it as an option available to officers; the patrol shotgun is more tactically appropriate and more mission appropriate, in most circumstances; and gives the officer more flexibility in response options, than the patrol carbine.

I have nothing against the patrol carbine. It fills a genuine need, while being familiar to many officers from military service and recreational shooting; as well as being understood and accepted by the general public (now anyway, more than 10 years post 9/11. When it was first becoming common in the early to mid 90s, it was a huge political issue).

...I just don't think the patrol carbine meets the urban and suburban law enforcement mission as well as another option might.

Note: I should say, I'm not exactly an original thinker in this. What I'm saying now has been said by hundreds of law enforcement trainers, and thousands of law enforcement officers, for years... But I have rarely seen this discussion in the gunblogger realm, and it's something I thought my readers might be interested in discussing, and in many cases may be able to contribute their firsthand or relevant knowledge and experience to

The two mission challenges addressed by the patrol carbine (as opposed to the personal sidearm, or patrol shotgun) are:

1. marksmanship and immediate response capabilities at 15-100 yard distances; to be able to rapidly respond to situations in that tactical regime without waiting for a SWAT callout.

2. Effective, immediate, response against lightly barricaded subjects (particularly those barricaded in or behind vehicles), or subjects wearing light to medium body armor; again, to allow an officer to rapidly respond to these situations without waiting for SWAT callout.

A note: I am qualifying myself with "urban and suburban" here, because there are some mission challenges in rural law enforcement, and in highway patrol, that may be better met by rifle caliber weapons. In these environments, an officer may be a very long distance (or long response time) away from backup, support, or enhanced capability response units.

Further, an officer may commonly encounter a need to respond to situations best met by a rifle. Dispatching wildlife, handling longer range engagements (lots of clear space around highways, and in rural areas, for hostile subjects to engage an officer), dealing with subjects that are more heavily barricaded or in deeper cover (or are barricaded at greater distances... particularly in or behind vehicles at greater distance), disabling vehicles; and in extremis, engaging rifle armed subjects (which, because of the time and distance involved, can't wait for a SWAT callout; if the organization even has such resources available).

I would advance the proposition that a better solution to the tactical challenge the patrol carbine addresses, at least for the urban and suburban patrol officer, may in fact be better addressed with a PDW concept weapon which gives armor penetration capability (such as the P90).

In general I would posit that the patrol officer does not need response capabilities for heavily armored, heavily barricaded, or excess of 100 yard situations; in which rifle caliber weapons would provide a decisive advantage over PDW concept weapons. These situations should be handled by SWAT or tactical response; or other heavy armor, and rifle equipped, response units.

The patrol officer is neither trained, nor equipped to handle this mission (nor should he be under normal circumstances), and should only be responding to these situations in extreme circumstances (except in a supporting role. Establishing and maintaining a perimeter, handling the public, etc...).

The PDW concept offers light weight, ease of maneuverability and handling, good ergonomics, rapid fire capability with little recoil, precision marksmanship within its accuracy envelope (100 yards and under), and armor penetration within its high percentage performance envelope (50 yards and under).

I believe these advantages and performance envelope are better matched to the needs of the urban or suburban patrol officer, than the advantages and performance envelope of the rifle caliber weapon.

As of 2012, there are several PDW concept weapons that have been proven effective in operational use (most notably the P90, but there are others).

I believe the PDW concept may not yet be mature enough to consider for wholesale adoption by American law enforcement (and I remain doubtful as to the general military mission for the class of weapon); however, it may present a better solution in general, to the patrol officers mission challenges, than the rifle caliber patrol carbine.

Round Count

One of the questions I'm asked most often about carrying weapons for defense of self and others, is about reloads and backups. Do you carry a reload, do you carry two, do you carry a backup gun...

This question is often followed by "doesn't that make you a paranoid or something?"

One of my favorite sayings, and one that I live by is "It's not whether you're paranoid, it's whether you're paranoid enough".

Yes, I carry a reload, in fact I sometimes carry two. I also carry a backup gun, and a reload for it.

I carry minimum of 10 rounds (5 shot revolver and 1 reload) to a maximum of 50 (BHP with two 18rd magazines, Keltec P3AT with spare mag). I suppose I could carry a third mag (one in the gun and two spares) for the BHP, to bring it up to 68; but I don’t really bother... I mean I have carried that much when I'm open carrying, but I rarely do.

Does that make me paranoid? Maybe. I just hope it makes me paranoid enough.

Oh and I also always carry a knife; a way to deal with screws, small nuts and bolts, and wire (either a multitool, or a keychain tool); a flashlight (actually I usually have two); some cording (550 cord); and a way of making fire. DOes that mkae me paranoid? Again I say I hope it makes me paranoid enough.

Often the question is then asked (usually by old revolver men), "If you can't do it with six, you're in more trouble than you can handle with a handgun anyway, so why bother?"

Well, they're right about one thing, if you can't stop a single threat with six rounds, you've got big problems; but I don't carry all that so I'll have more lead to send downrange at one target. The first threat is always that of multiple assailants; especially in an urban environment. More ammo gives you more flexibility in your response here; and that's important.

But that's not primarily why I carry reloads and a backup.

When it comes to defending my life, and the lives of others, I follow the dictum “two is one, one is none”. As far as I’m concerned, when I've got my Colt Defender (7+1 and 7) and my P3AT (6+1 and 6) with reloads (which is my most frequent carry rig); the total round count may be 28, but I’ve only got 15 rounds there that I can count on.

My biggest concerns are malfunctions and environmental loss.

I carry a backup magazine because the smartest way to clear a malfunction is with a fresh mag. Most automatic pistol malfunctions are caused by either bad ammunition or bad magazines. When you have a serious stoppage malfunction, the best thing you can do to resolve it is clear the weapon of any potentially defective ammunition and magazine, and reload with a fresh, known good mag and ammo.

I carry a backup gun because clearing malfunctions is slower than grabbing another gun; and also because it isn’t hard to end up with a gun lost to the environment in the exigencies of a fight.

If you end up having to clear a vehicle or a door frame quickly, or if you god forbid fall down some stairs or the median or embankment of a road (and I’ve had all of the above happen while in potentially threatening situations), it isn’t hard to end up without your sidearm, or with it out of the action (I’ve never had the first happen, but I have had the second happen).

If you're out in the woods, it's very easy to end up slipping in the creek, or sliding down the hillside; and suddenly you are without your most effective external self defense tool (actually, the only time I like pistol lanyards is when you're out hiking or boating).

I also carry a backup gun, because it is important to establish the unbreakable routine of carrying. You can't win a gun fight if you don't have a gun, so make sure you have a gun.

My backup gun goes into my pocket the minute I pick out my pants in the morning, and doesn’t come out until those pants go into the laundry.

My backup guns are generally a Kel-Tec P3AT or a KelTec PF9; but I sometimes use an SP101 (I’d use a 340pd if I had one. I keep meaning to buy one). 6+1 rounds each for the first two, 5 for the third, and I ALWAYS have a reload for my backup guns.

The reloads are small and light; and by rule of karma and Murphy, if not necessarily engineering (though often backup guns ARE somewhat less reliable than larger carry pieces), backup guns are the ones most likely to malfunction when you desperately need them. Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

My primary carry guns are a Yost custom Colt Defender in .45, a Yost custom Springfield Champion, or the Hank Fleming full custom 10mm full size govt that was a gift from the Nation of Riflemen. Those 1911s hold 7+1, 8+1, and 9+1 rounds respectively, with the magazines I carry. I usually carry a reload for each of those as well; but with the backup, I don’t always bother. If I’m feeling froggy I may have two reloads, but I usually don’t bother; unless I'm heading out into the woods (where I'm likely to be carrying a large revolver instead by the way).

So a typical load for me is as I said above 6+1 and 6 for the P3AT, and 7+1 plus 7 for the Defender. That’s 28rds.

Less commonly I’ll carry an HK USP compact (8+1 and 8) or the FM Detective (cut down BHP) with KRD extended mags (which actually work great, at 18+1 and 18).

Of those, the only gun with more than 10 rounds capacity in it is the BHP; and I chose the KRD mags not because they offer more capacity, but because they are completely reliable, and they are easier to grab and seat (because they have an integral bumper pad base plate) quickly. Standard BHP mags are harder to handle quickly; and are especially difficult to strip if they jam in the magwell.

As to how much it weighs and how bulky it is? Honestly I don’t even notice it… ‘cept the 10mm, since it’s about 44oz loaded; but it’s an open carry only gun for me anyway, I’m not worried about concealing it. The rest I’m so used to, they aren’t even there anymore.

Because honestly, when it comes to defending your life, do those few ounces bother you all that much?

Don't give them what they want

An acquaintance of mine recently renewed his concealed carry permit, and his instructors (both veteran cops), gave a very common piece of advice "the best thing you can do in a robbery is sit tight, give them what they want, and be a good witness".

That can be good advice to a point (I don't totally agree with it, but OK); but that's where most police officers stop.They never qualify their point. Fortunately, these ones did, by following up with "unless things start to get violent, in which case the only thing you can do is try and stop the threat".

What most cops won't tell you, because they don't want you "trying to be a hero"; is that once there has been an escalation of violence in the commission of a crime, the chances of somebody not being killed or seriously injured are very poor.

If you're dealing with what cops call an ODC (ordinary decent criminal), then most likely nobody is going to get hurt; but once things tip over that edge (and it can happen at any time, with no warning), you are effectively a dead man already, unless you act to prevent that from happening.

You should NEVER comply with a rapist, or a criminal who is intent on violence; and ALL rape is violence of the worst sort.

You should NEVER comply with a criminal who is clearly mentally unstable, or grossly impaired mentally by drugs or alcohol.

It should go without saying, that you should NEVER comply with a criminal who has invaded your home, private office, or car; as these are automatically at an escalated level of violence (because they are emotionally violent and risky acts as well as physically).

In fact, if you have effective means of resisting, and are not risking others unduly in the process, I believe you should never comply with a criminal period.

Simply by committing a crime they have demonstrated that they have no respect for the rules of civilized behavior. Why should you expect them to behave otherwise once they have what they want?

That said, perhaps local laws don't allow for effective self defense, or require a "proportionality of response". Or perhaps resisting WOULD unduly risk others, or your means of resisting may not be the most effective (empty handed for example).

Perhaps then you should comply; but sometimes, even then, you must still resist; because of the likelihood that violence will escalate to homicide, or grievous harm.

There are seven “danger signs” for homicidal escalation in the commission of a crime

1. If the subjects use of violence escalates beyond a slap or punch; even if by accident
2. If the subject is extremely nervous, out of control, has violent mood swings or is frantic, etc…
3. If the subject appears to be eager, having fun, or high/tweaked/stoned/drunk
4. If the subject singles out, isolates, personalizes, or sexualizes their interaction with an individual
5. If the subject makes specific threats on a particular individuals life to force compliance from another
6. If the subject physically restrains an individual or group (rope, tape, handcuffs etc...)
7. If the subject attempts to move individuals to an area away from public view, or isolated from others

If any of these conditions is a factor, the probability that the situation can be resolved without death or serious injury is very low. If any two of them are factors, then serious violence is almost a certainty. Any three, and you are a dead man waiting to happen.

Now, a couple of hard and fast rules for dealing with violent crime:

1. Never give up your weapon in a violent crime. If someone says drop your weapon, they are going to kill you as soon as you do. If they say it while holding a gun to the head of someone else, they’re going to shoot the other person after you drop your weapon, THEN they are going to shoot you. If a subject orders you to drop your weapon, before they finish their sentence you should already have shot them in the head.

2. Never allow yourself or others to be cut out and isolated from a group, or from the main area of the location where the crime is occurring. Do NOT be led into the back room or some such; if you are, then you are almost certainly going to be killed.

3. Do not be passive in the face of escalated violence. Once violence has escalated beyond the point of simple assault, you are a dead man waiting for the bullet. Realize that and fight back in any way you can, whether you are armed or not. Remember, ANYTHING can be a weapon.

4. Do not, under any circumstances, allow yourself to be physically restrained in any way

5. Do not attempt to establish any personal or humanizing connection with a subject, unless you are unarmed and in a hostage situation

6. If violence does escalate, respond immediately and decisively. Shoot to stop, use your knife to stop, use your fists, your feet, your teeth, use whatever it takes to end the threat as fast as possible. This isn’t Hollywood, this is your life, and the lives of those around you. You don’t give warning shots and you don’t tell someone to drop their weapon; you shoot them in the head or center chest (or both). If you are unarmed, you must also respond decisively and immediately, but your options are much more limited. Remember though, at this point there is already a high likelihood that you are a dead man if you DON’T do something, so sitting tight and waiting to die isn’t a great idea.

7. The rules change dramatically in a hostage situation, because the power dynamics are radically different; but if you are armed or capable of resisting, DO NOT ALLOW a hostage situation to develop.If one does, expend all possible efforts on either disabling the subject or escaping. The most likely way for you or others to die in the robbery of a public place is if a hostage situation develops.

Let me state absolutely unequivocally one more time, DO NOT COMPLY WITH VIOLENT CRIMINALS; they are likely to kill you whether you comply or not, and compliance only makes that job easier.

Isreal, Palestine,Terrorism, and Politics

Recntly there have been some stories in the press accusing Israel of "state sponsored terrorism", related to this incident, and others (as described below):

Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Deir Yassin was slated for occupation under Plan Dalet and the mainstream Jewish defense force, the Haganah, authorized the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang to perform the takeover.

In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty-three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of the Old City, where they were found by Miss Hind Husseini and brought behind the American Colony Hotel to her home, which was to become the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi orphanage.

As much as this story has an obvious pro palestinian slant here, the facts of the story are true (never mind the editorial), and there are more of them. The Irgun, and even the Haganah were vicious; and don't even get me started on the Sayeret.

Every successful revolution (including our own BTW, on both sides), and most civil wars (including our own, on both sides) have used terrorist tactics at one point or another. It's part of warfare; certainly a despicable part, but theres no such thing as a clean war, and anyone who thinks there is needs to get their heads out of their asses.

Anyone who thinks the U.S. is "above" terrorism, you're kidding yourselves. We have done, and will do whatever it takes to serve our interests. In these media conscious days, if that means getting third parties to do it for us under the pay of the CIA in Laos, Cambodia, Nicaraugua, Afghanistan etc... how are we any less responsible for the terrorism that happens because of it?

It's a tactic, and a strategy. In particular it's the tactic of forces that do not have the resources to mount a successful guerilla campaign; and the strategy of forces whos objectives are militarily impossible, but politically possible.

The objective of terrorism is to demoralize the civilan population that supports the controlling authority, and to provoke disproportionate and misdirected response from the controlling authority; which will tend to engender support for the terrorists from the disaffected population, and from outside groups opposed to the controlling authority.

Terrorism isn't about military targets, it's about violent politics and propaganda, and it works in this limited arena only. Terrorists arent trying to win wars, they are trying to gain enough support that they no longer need to be terrorists; or failing that create enough chaos that the controlling authority collapses or loses control. Once chaos has trumped control, the terrorists then have a better chance for conducting successful operations given their limited resources which will allow them to take control.

Do I approve of it morally? Sure I do.

Repeat after me: WAR IS NOT A MORAL EXCERCISE

The causes of war, and the results of war may be moral, but the conduct of war has nothing to do with morality. War is about forcing your enemy to give in, and any strategy or tactic that causes that to happen is acceptable if it will end the war sooner.

You have to decide what a valid target or tactic is based on your asessment of your enemy, and their reactions to your targeting. In World War II, we decided that unrestricted bombing of civilian targets in Germany and Japan was a valid tactic (not strategy), because it would end the war quicker. Was this action moral? Individually no, but as part of a strategy to end the war quciker?

THE ONLY MORALITY IN WAR, IS ENDING IT QUICKLY

You have to preform a thought experiment here to understand what I'm talking about. Let's say the united states has been successfully invaded by a hostile foreign power. They have successfully pacified both coasts, but there are still large numbers of patriotic Americans with small arms, some military training, and some good leadership; in the mountain states, the woods and mountains of the south, and in pockets of the prairie.

No-one is happy under the occupation, but the people on the coasts are sufficiently afraid of the control the invaders have that they will not rise up against them. The invaders have brought in large numbers of their civlian population to adminsiter our occupation, and to reap the profits. The invaders also have artillery, air, and armor, but their infrastructure isn't fully established. They tend to have large, dense concentrations of forces, that are spread far apart, with little capability to respond in between, but significant civilian populations and political centers in those locations.

How are you, as a patriotic American, going to restore our republic? Now do you understand why I say terrorism is just another tactic (or strategy, depending on how it's used)?

Note: Read Robert Heinleins 1949 classic "The Sixth Column" if you want to know where that little thought experiment came from BTW. Of course I'd bet most of my readers already have, and recognized it about halfway in. A lot of Heinlein fans think this is one of his worst, but most of those people are liberals who "find it simplistic, and jingoistic, and find its racism, sexism, militarism, and anti-communism uncomfortable to read" (and yes, that's a direct quote).

I only object to terrorism (in the abstract) on tactical and strategic grounds; in that terrorism generally does not work.

Of course, in failing as a tactic and a strategy; terrorism creates more casualties or worse living conditions and oppression among innocents; than would be prevented if it did work (the only moral justification for war). This is clearly immoral.

In fact, terrorism often has the opposite effect intended, in that it strengthens the resolve of those it is directed against. This is accounted for in terrorist doctrine, in that you are trying to provoke a response; however if your opponent has no qualms about mis-targeted attacks, or collateral damage (As the Israelis clearly do not, nor should they), all that will happen is that you and your supporters will be exterminated.

In a population firmly committed to the controlling authority, or to the principles that authority represents, terrorism cannot achieve it's political goals, and can only be successful if it results in significant military gain (generally in the form of support from outside groups).

Unless the population or groups from which you intend to draw support are prepared (and are large enough and/or rich enough) to give you enough support to accomplish more significant military missions, or your target is politically unstable or vulnerable to chaos; terrorism will ultimately be unsuccessful, and merely wasteful of life.

Whatever your moral conception of the Palestinian issue (and mine is they lost 56 years ago, get over it), the Palestinian terrorist campaign is tactically sound (barely), but strategically unsound; which is the definition of how to win battles and lose wars.

It's important to understand, this is intentional.

The Palestinian terrorist campaign is NOT designed to win.

The terrorist campaign and it's associated groups are not capable of significant military victory, because the Arab nations which supposedly support them, are in fact using them as a pawn in their own political machinations. These states explicitly and intentionally deny the terrorist groups the resources necessary to conduct successful operations, becuase it would not suit their purposes to have the conflict end.

Without sufficient state support, the populations from which the terrorists draw direct support are neither large enough, or commited enough to provide enough manpower; nor do they have the resources to provide the equipment and materiel which would be sufficient to ensure military victory.

The only option left if they intend to win, is to cause a collapse of the Israeili system. This is clearly impossible. Israelis know that the cost of political defeat and collapse would be their death.

The terrorists do not intend to win here; excepting the fanatics who believe that if they are devoted enough Allah will sweep Israel into the sea.

The true purpose of the palestinian terror movement is organized crime. Power, romance, money, sex, drugs... whatever. Being an arab peasant is boring and unpleasant. Being a "freedom fighter" however is romantic, and "honorable", and it gives you an excuse to violate Allahs laws as much as you want, and still get the 72 virgins at the end.

They know they can't win, but their lives suck enough that they'd rather die fighting (and drinking, and fucking), then live being fucked over by their governments.