TexasCHLforum.com

The LEOs I know use semi-auto ARs or have the ability to purchase one on their own dime, qualify with it, and carry in their trunk or mounted between the front seats. Many are using them in lieu of the shotguns.

Each department will set requirements for calibers, brands, and options that are allowed.

Full autos are going away. The department I used to work for had full auto MP5s and those were traded in for semi-auto M4s. The full autos have to be owned by the department, but the officers can be issued one (but it's not a good idea for a department to allow an officer to take it home; however, some do). If an officer buys a full auto weapon, and I worked with a guy that had a couple, then the officer has to go through the same process that anyone else does, ie. tax stamp, etc. I've had a C&R license and CHL for years, and both while working for the PD.

The full autos don't really give you any sort of an advantage, and they burn through tons of ammo. The department was very restrictive about who was allowed to use them. With the ARs, everyone could use them that qualified. A lot of us bought our own ARs that met the department criteria and carried those.

The military ARs are junk. The military has a program through the DRMO where police departments can obtain military surplus equipment. This equipment is obtained from the nearest military base, and then when it's no longer needed, it's returned to that base to be disposed of. I've gone through this program before, and I went through Fort Hood. You can get a username and password to search the database for all the decommissioned stuff in the DRMO program. Like I said though, if you can buy new stuff, it's best to stay away from the old used military stuff.

Purplehood wrote:I carried a 3-round burst only M-4 in Afghanistan. The last time I had a full-auto capable M-16 was in Boot Camp at Parris Island in 1976. Do the Armed Forces even issue full-auto M4/M16's to anyone other than SpecOps now?

Not currently. The M-16A1 was full auto, and the M-16A2 only had the 3-round burst. The M-16A3 had the full auto back, but the M-16A4 (or M4 as it's commonly known and is the current issue military rifle) only has the 3-round burst.

I'm not sure why they keep going back and forth on this. I do know full auto is very inaccurate and is really only effective for suppression fire.

Except the new HK 416, that is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZpZryZEiY4

Kythas:
What's the deal on the full length M16 vs. the M4?

I always thought that our ground troops, both Army and devil dogs, used the M16 (long one)
and that the M4 (shorter version) was for SEALS and other special forces.

Did all our forces switch to the shorter M4's when we went to Iraq in 1991? Or when?

SIA

When in Afghanistan in 06-07, it was mostly a question of availability. If you could, you got issued an M4. Since I was not going to be stuck back in the rear at HQ but sent out on a two-man team, I was given priority and handed an M4. Out at the Forward Operating Base (FOB) most of the Infantry had M4's, and the troops that tended to never leave the FOB had the M16.
EDIT: Officers carried M4's also on mission. No one wanted to be caught outside the FOB without one. When on the FOB we all tended to carry the M9 only (24/7, those of us that had them).

>I'm not sure why they keep going back and forth on this. I do know full auto is very inaccurate and
>is really only effective for suppression fire.

Not to stray too far from the topic, but the 3-round burst seems to be primarily an American peculiarity. Of the many other nations that issue M-16 type rifles, I believe most of the provide full-auto capabilty:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another question to anyone:

I would think the M16 would be preferable to the M4 due to the M16's longer barrel.
The longer the barrel, the more easy it is to be accurate.

Are the M4's preferred (although a shorter barrel) due to house-clearing convenience,
or is it because the M4's are newer, and hence have less mechanical problems?

SIA

The M4 is a Carbine the M16 is a rifle different guns different missions. With the proliferation of optical sights on the battlefield barrel liength and sight radius is moot. The 20" barrel of the M16 will give a little better velocity and range than the shorter M4 barrel. In a CQB situation I'll take short and handy anytime.

MoJo: Thanks.

SIA

MoJo wrote:The M4 is a Carbine the M16 is a rifle different guns different missions. With the proliferation of optical sights on the battlefield barrel liength and sight radius is moot. The 20" barrel of the M16 will give a little better velocity and range than the shorter M4 barrel. In a CQB situation I'll take short and handy anytime.

It is also handier for use in Urban Environments due to the short size. I also came across mammoth soldiers that carried M16s that looked like toys in their hands, so my guess is that it didn't make much difference to them.

I haven't played with a M16A4 before, but Colt lists them and M4A1 (newer model) as select fire: safe, semi, full auto.

http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;