Special forces, Police tactics and weaponry

TheNog

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

If someone is pointing a weapon at you double tapping is still the standard way to stop them at close quarters/DA IA and firing two rounds 1/10th of a sec apart can be fully justified, inc under the human rights legislation and ROEs.

Both rounds are fully accounted for.

Infact I know of no incident where armed Police in Ireland or the UK have fired only 1 round at an armed aggressor pointing a weapon at them at close quarters.

And double tapping is certainly not a breach of the human rights act, obviously it depends on the circumstances used.

Hey Cherrypicker,

Im a novice at this but just wondering is double tapping a police or military tactics?

Were you trained in the North?

JonAnderton wrote: »

want to... Reply... Factually incorrect...Must... Resist.. Must not go... Off topic...

+1 to not going off topic but lets weed out the facts here first.

Thread topic has drifted slightly but I feel is still related and a decent discussion is being debated so lets leave out the bad posts

hk

Off topic as it might be certain things said warrant reply, some has been said but i feel i can add a little.There are many reasons why double tap is inappropriate to use:1. As stated, every time you squeeze the trigger there must be an immediate threat, and you must use minimum force for the situation at hand. One shot reassess and fire again if necessary.2. No police unit anywhere or military unit outside of SF for that matter can spend the required time on range to sufficiently reach and maintain the accuracy required for double tap, firing rounds fast is no use if your in danger unless they hit the target, not to mention the potential problem with background.3. There have been many studies which show how the body reacts to being shot. Normally there is a short period of numbness prior to the shock affecting the body. It has been found that two shots fired almost simultanuously will not have the same level of shock as two rounds fired seperatly. Furthermore the body quickly adapts to the the shock, and it is less likely that third and subsequent shots will have the effectiveness of the first two. Remember the aim is to incapasitate and remove the threat, not to kill, plenty of rounds will achieve a kill, but depending on how they are fired my not incapasitate as quickly as required. One or two well placed shots may achieve incapasitation, hopefully without loss of life.4. Uzi Vs MP5, this arguement is going on for years. I have fired both and find no major difference in accuracy, if someone can shoot they can shoot and for the most prt the gun plays a very small part in accuracy. The difference between open bolt and closed bolt results in minor accuracy differences on first shot only, Ie a double tap with either gun would have similar inherent accuracy on the second shot anyway. Remember a good shooter with a bad gun will always do better than a bad shooter with a good gun.

deadwood

CLADA wrote: »

double tapping in police firearms training and operations is very much a thing of the past.

JonAnderton wrote: »

Cheers CLADA..same here..

If the first shot took him down and killed him,why did you fire two..or if two officers fire..four!

And double tapping is certainly not a breach of the human rights act, obviously it depends on the circumstances used.

One shot. Bang, bang!

CLADA

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

If someone is pointing a weapon at you double tapping is still the standard way to stop them at close quarters/DA IA and firing two rounds 1/10th of a sec apart can be fully justified, inc under the human rights legislation and ROEs.

Both rounds are fully accounted for.

Infact I know of no incident where armed Police in Ireland or the UK have fired only 1 round at an armed aggressor pointing a weapon at them at close quarters.

And double tapping is certainly not a breach of the human rights act, obviously it depends on the circumstances used.

Accounting for rounds means more than simply confirming they were all on target.

A firearms officer must believe his first round has not acheived its lawful purpose before he can discharge a second or subsequent.
How would you convince a court of law or tribunal of this in the case of double tapping?

I'm not disputing the fact that multiple rounds may be fired during armed operations but the FO is accountable for each round he discharges.

In Lusk in 2005 an armed Garda fired a single round at a raider who pointed a gun at him, the same Garda fired a single round at a second raider in the same incident.

Just noticed the comment about UZI's being issued after one days training, please tell me you didn't believe the clown who told you that.

cherrypicker555

hk wrote: »

Off topic as it might be certain things said warrant reply, some has been said but i feel i can add a little.There are many reasons why double tap is inappropriate to use:1. As stated, every time you squeeze the trigger there must be an immediate threat, and you must use minimum force for the situation at hand. One shot reassess and fire again if necessary.2. No police unit anywhere or military unit outside of SF for that matter can spend the required time on range to sufficiently reach and maintain the accuracy required for double tap, firing rounds fast is no use if your in danger unless they hit the target, not to mention the potential problem with background.3. There have been many studies which show how the body reacts to being shot. Normally there is a short period of numbness prior to the shock affecting the body. It has been found that two shots fired almost simultanuously will not have the same level of shock as two rounds fired seperatly. Furthermore the body quickly adapts to the the shock, and it is less likely that third and subsequent shots will have the effectiveness of the first two. Remember the aim is to incapasitate and remove the threat, not to kill, plenty of rounds will achieve a kill, but depending on how they are fired my not incapasitate as quickly as required. One or two well placed shots may achieve incapasitation, hopefully without loss of life.4. Uzi Vs MP5, this arguement is going on for years. I have fired both and find no major difference in accuracy, if someone can shoot they can shoot and for the most prt the gun plays a very small part in accuracy. The difference between open bolt and closed bolt results in minor accuracy differences on first shot only, Ie a double tap with either gun would have similar inherent accuracy on the second shot anyway. Remember a good shooter with a bad gun will always do better than a bad shooter with a good gun.

If someone is pointing a shotgun at you,in reality you do not fire a shot and wait to see if theres a reflex action. Obviously the markman would state he felt his life was still threatened.

Double tapping is not just used by SF units, any markman should be able to get to shots on target at close range. Due to kinetic energy, obviously two shots have more stopping power then one, no matter what your claim.

The difference is SF follow up with one shot to the head with a short, in the case of suicide bombers one shot to the upper spinal column.

As for closed bolt v open bolt, the Uzi in inaccurate over 35m, the HK MP5 is accurate up to 200m.

Even the Israelis admit its inaccurate, hence a poor chioce for armed Police units.

Design drawbacks

The Uzi has been criticized for its open-bolt design. Open bolt, blowback firearms tend to have reduced accuracy, because as the trigger is pulled, the bolt slams forward and hits the breech, interfering with the shooter's aim.


.....Anyway must crack on.

cherrypicker555

CLADA wrote: »

Accounting for rounds means more than simply confirming they were all on target.

A firearms officer must believe his first round has not acheived its lawful purpose before he can discharge a second or subsequent.
How would you convince a court of law or tribunal of this in the case of double tapping?

I'm not disputing the fact that multiple rounds may be fired during armed operations but the FO is accountable for each round he discharges.

In Lusk in 2005 an armed Garda fired a single round at a raider who pointed a gun at him, the same Garda fired a single round at a second raider in the same incident.

Just noticed the comment about UZI's being issued after one days training, please tell me you didn't believe the clown who told you that.

Up to the mid 90s uniformed Garda were issued with Uzis after one day of weapons training in emergency incidents, such as kidnappings. I know that for a fact, it was also in the media.

Other points answered above. Heres one for you, what night tactical training do the ERU do ?





Cheers CP.

Eru

Ok I can bite my tongue no more, theres a lot being said here without backup and is incorrect and unfair on the police in general so here goes. I stayed away for so long because this is all off topic but anyway.....

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Well according to their trainers CO19 are gung ho, from what I have seen of the Garda expect more of the same.

"There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It’s a major problem.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567961.ece



One of the soldiers said: “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.”

The second soldier said: “We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking ‘gung ho’, rather than their professional capabilities. I’m not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years.

Now hang on, your stating that two retired sas soldiers trained and deployed police firearms teams but didnt think they were capable? Sorry but condeming your own pupil after passing them is not professional. In fact its downright unethical. This is media whoring plain and simple and their involvement in training co19 is not recognised but is 'suggested' by unknown sources.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Take into account the Uzis they use are actually intented for military close quarter combat at close range (the short stock weapon was designed for IDF paratroopers) and we are getting into John Wayne/Starsky and Hutch territory.

No they werent, they were designed as a light, sturdy and easy to maintain weapon for all use. Also, the designer was military therefore the military market and close quarter combat? Kinda like entering a house for example? Or dealing with a bank robbery? Sounds like police use to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UZI)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

And as far as Im am aware the ERU do not get enough constant practice time to enable them to be efficient at explosive entry, high intensity armed Police units need to train a minimum of 1 in 14 days, half on the range, half practising drills. SAS rotation troop who are on stand by to use these techniques train 6 days a week, such is the variety of potential places of entry, from cinemas, to trains, to high rise flats, to planes etc, etc.

You need to back up this statement of dump it. You cant simple make a statement like that without evidence. SAS on standby are exactly that, sitting on their asses compared to police units that are live day in day out. They also train 1 in 8 weeks (http://www.met.police.uk/co19/) which is more than you claim is needed and acording to http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/training/ are the main close quarter urban experts above the sas.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Not sure, I know for a fact ERU units get no tactical night training.

In the past Uzis were issued to uniformed Garda in emergency situations after 1 day of weapons training.

Qualify this statement or dump it please.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Yes, but they authorised to use explosive entry, but not trained for many of the situations it might arise, so its poor practice.

Qualify this statement please as you are not police so dont know the training.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

As for SAS CT rotation troop, they are a rotation troop, who troopers serve with in between doing stuff like below, ie task force black against Al-Qaeda. Similar to what armed Police units do only in a more demanding theatre, rounding up armed suspects for rendition. Doing dozens of entries every day.

well you cant really know that too be honest but working on that comment. The SAS work in an urban envireonment the same as the police where there are civilians. The difference? Not much really except when the police shoot innocent people or other their so called 'aalies' their army doesnt simple bust them out of jail after being arrested by a lowly policeman and refuse to take any discipline action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

How can a weapon (the Uzi) whos bolt system and short barrel makes innacurate over 35m be a good choice for an armed Police response unit, as stated it was originally designed for mechanised infantry and paras(CQB), hence the short barrel and stock.

Again because most special police unit work is short range such as armed hostage situations inside buildings. You seem to believe we should only have snipers. Its also been developed over the years and is still in use by multiple specialist services including the Israeli secret service and counter terrorism units. The only thing ever admitted was that it was no longer of use in war zones where larger weapons were prefered. (http://www.riflesnguns.com/submachine/imi/microuzi)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Which is why the MP7 was rejected by the CO19, the safest rounds for Police armed response units are Hollow-points, armour piercing rounds, which also go through walls are too potentially dangerous to use in a civilian environment.

If the ERU had used them in Athey in 91, many people would have died.

You misunderstood. Armour piercing capablilities not standard. There is in fact a dozen different types of ammo for use with this weapon including seperate armour piercing for police use as opposed to military use.

As for co19, can you support that statement please? My understanding was they were developing their own weaponry and this no final decision had been made. Besides they have the mp5 which is not obsolete yet and only the mod police haze adopted the mp7. Perhaps once tested by them others will follow (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC3C0C9D-2561-4889-9738-628F644462C0/0/TT122MP7.pdf). Also it should be noted that the elite Cobra squad from Austria and the German GFP have both adopted it as has all UN security forces in policing plus multiple counter terrorism organisations who will be working in civilian areas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP7)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

The MP5s closed bolt gives it far more accuracy, it is also much easier to double tap, but from what I have seen of the ERU I'm not even sure that point was of concern. I accept in the last 10 years they have beome a far more professional outfit. But the gung ho ethos is still there, hence the booting in doors, posing and using anti armour rounds.

All Police officers wishing to join an armed response unit should be psychologically profiled and have a high fitness standard.

Again, you cant make such a statement. You have no idea what does and does not go into recruitment and how much live eru operations have you seen?

You seem to greatly underestimate Police special forces units which is unwise as they compare well against Military special forces in similar style operations. In fact, they usuallu beat them (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/army-rangers-among-best-elite-forces-210033.html)



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747478/posts

http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/

http://gunmanuals.net/Manuals/hk_mp7a1.pdf

cherrypicker555

One last one I could not resist.

"You need to back up this statement of dump it. You cant simple make a statement like that without evidence. SAS on standby are exactly that, sitting on their asses compared to police units that are live day in day out. They also train 1 in 8 weeks (http://www.met.police.uk/co19/) which is more than you claim is needed and acording to http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/training/ are the main close quarter urban experts above the sas."


Threre is alot of fricton between SAS trainers and units like CO19, who are v far up their own a*****, arrogance is borne out of ignorance.

To the point where units like CO19 believe they are now more proficient then SAS CT teams. Thats why they leave their weapons in burger bars.

The SAS do not sit on their arses they are constantly employing the above skills in Iraq A-stan in a v demanding theatre, I have previously linked, you ignored that link. Dozens of entries are carried out everyday in A-Stan and Bagdad, How many CO19firearms officers have been killed in the line of duty ?

SAS troopers also rotated through special projects/CT troop where these skills inc tubular, ie in planes, trains etc are constantly practised.

.....Anyway must crack on.

deadwood

Eru wrote: »

Qualify this statement or dump it please.

He knows it for a fact.

That's good enough for me.

Must have been sick the day uniform Gardai were running around with uzis.

Eru

OK, dont want to derail another topic so IM moving here where the topic can be discussed. Last few posts brouoght over for clarification

Ok I can bite my tongue no more, theres a lot being said here without backup and is incorrect and unfair on the police in general so here goes. I stayed away for so long because this is all off topic but anyway.....

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Well according to their trainers CO19 are gung ho, from what I have seen of the Garda expect more of the same.

"There is no assessment of physical fitness, no psychological profiling, nothing. It’s a major problem.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article567961.ece



One of the soldiers said: “When the tension starts to rise and the adrenaline is flowing, the ‘red mist’ seems to descend on armed police officers who become very trigger-happy. This has been shown time and again in training exercises.”

The second soldier said: “We thought that police firearms officers were far more concerned with their personal image, dressing in body armour and looking ‘gung ho’, rather than their professional capabilities. I’m not surprised at the number of mistakes over the years.

Now hang on, your stating that two retired sas soldiers trained and deployed police firearms teams but didnt think they were capable? Sorry but condeming your own pupil after passing them is not professional. In fact its downright unethical. This is media whoring plain and simple and their involvement in training co19 is not recognised but is 'suggested' by unknown sources.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Take into account the Uzis they use are actually intented for military close quarter combat at close range (the short stock weapon was designed for IDF paratroopers) and we are getting into John Wayne/Starsky and Hutch territory.

No they werent, they were designed as a light, sturdy and easy to maintain weapon for all use. Also, the designer was military therefore the military market and close quarter combat? Kinda like entering a house for example? Or dealing with a bank robbery? Sounds like police use to me. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UZI)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

And as far as Im am aware the ERU do not get enough constant practice time to enable them to be efficient at explosive entry, high intensity armed Police units need to train a minimum of 1 in 14 days, half on the range, half practising drills. SAS rotation troop who are on stand by to use these techniques train 6 days a week, such is the variety of potential places of entry, from cinemas, to trains, to high rise flats, to planes etc, etc.

You need to back up this statement of dump it. You cant simple make a statement like that without evidence. SAS on standby are exactly that, sitting on their asses compared to police units that are live day in day out. They also train 1 in 8 weeks (http://www.met.police.uk/co19/) which is more than you claim is needed and acording to http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/training/ are the main close quarter urban experts above the sas.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Not sure, I know for a fact ERU units get no tactical night training.

In the past Uzis were issued to uniformed Garda in emergency situations after 1 day of weapons training.

Qualify this statement or dump it please.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Yes, but they authorised to use explosive entry, but not trained for many of the situations it might arise, so its poor practice.

Qualify this statement please as you are not police so dont know the training.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

As for SAS CT rotation troop, they are a rotation troop, who troopers serve with in between doing stuff like below, ie task force black against Al-Qaeda. Similar to what armed Police units do only in a more demanding theatre, rounding up armed suspects for rendition. Doing dozens of entries every day.

well you cant really know that too be honest but working on that comment. The SAS work in an urban envireonment the same as the police where there are civilians. The difference? Not much really except when the police shoot innocent people or other their so called 'aalies' their army doesnt simple bust them out of jail after being arrested by a lowly policeman and refuse to take any discipline action (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4264614.stm)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

How can a weapon (the Uzi) whos bolt system and short barrel makes innacurate over 35m be a good choice for an armed Police response unit, as stated it was originally designed for mechanised infantry and paras(CQB), hence the short barrel and stock.

Again because most special police unit work is short range such as armed hostage situations inside buildings. You seem to believe we should only have snipers. Its also been developed over the years and is still in use by multiple specialist services including the Israeli secret service and counter terrorism units. The only thing ever admitted was that it was no longer of use in war zones where larger weapons were prefered. (http://www.riflesnguns.com/submachine/imi/microuzi)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Which is why the MP7 was rejected by the CO19, the safest rounds for Police armed response units are Hollow-points, armour piercing rounds, which also go through walls are too potentially dangerous to use in a civilian environment.

If the ERU had used them in Athey in 91, many people would have died.

You misunderstood. Armour piercing capablilities not standard. There is in fact a dozen different types of ammo for use with this weapon including seperate armour piercing for police use as opposed to military use.

As for co19, can you support that statement please? My understanding was they were developing their own weaponry and this no final decision had been made. Besides they have the mp5 which is not obsolete yet and only the mod police haze adopted the mp7. Perhaps once tested by them others will follow (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/DC3C0C9D-2561-4889-9738-628F644462C0/0/TT122MP7.pdf). Also it should be noted that the elite Cobra squad from Austria and the German GFP have both adopted it as has all UN security forces in policing plus multiple counter terrorism organisations who will be working in civilian areas. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP7)

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

The MP5s closed bolt gives it far more accuracy, it is also much easier to double tap, but from what I have seen of the ERU I'm not even sure that point was of concern. I accept in the last 10 years they have beome a far more professional outfit. But the gung ho ethos is still there, hence the booting in doors, posing and using anti armour rounds.

All Police officers wishing to join an armed response unit should be psychologically profiled and have a high fitness standard.

Again, you cant make such a statement. You have no idea what does and does not go into recruitment and how much live eru operations have you seen?

You seem to greatly underestimate Police special forces units which is unwise as they compare well against Military special forces in similar style operations. In fact, they usuallu beat them (http://www.independent.ie/national-news/army-rangers-among-best-elite-forces-210033.html)



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747478/posts

http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/

http://gunmanuals.net/Manuals/hk_mp7a1.pdf

Eru

Posted for clarification purposes

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

One last one I could not resist.

"You need to back up this statement of dump it. You cant simple make a statement like that without evidence. SAS on standby are exactly that, sitting on their asses compared to police units that are live day in day out. They also train 1 in 8 weeks (http://www.met.police.uk/co19/) which is more than you claim is needed and acording to http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/training/ are the main close quarter urban experts above the sas."


Threre is alot of fricton between SAS trainers and units like CO19, who are v far up their own a*****, arrogance is borne out of ignorance.

To the point where units like CO19 believe they are now more proficient then SAS CT teams. Thats why they leave their weapons in burger bars.

The SAS do not sit on their arses they are constantly employing the above skills in Iraq A-stan in a v demanding theatre, I have previously linked, you ignored that link. Dozens of entries are carried out everyday in A-Stan and Bagdad, How many CO19firearms officers have been killed in the line of duty ?

SAS troopers also rotated through special projects/CT troop where these skills inc tubular, ie in planes, trains etc are constantly practised.

.....Anyway must crack on.

TheNog

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

One last one I could not resist.

"You need to back up this statement of dump it. You cant simple make a statement like that without evidence. SAS on standby are exactly that, sitting on their asses compared to police units that are live day in day out. They also train 1 in 8 weeks (http://www.met.police.uk/co19/) which is more than you claim is needed and acording to http://www.eliteukforces.info/police/CO19/training/ are the main close quarter urban experts above the sas."


Threre is alot of fricton between SAS trainers and units like CO19, who are v far up their own a*****, arrogance is borne out of ignorance.

To the point where units like CO19 believe they are now more proficient then SAS CT teams. Thats why they leave their weapons in burger bars.

The SAS do not sit on their arses they are constantly employing the above skills in Iraq A-stan in a v demanding theatre, I have previously linked, you ignored that link. Dozens of entries are carried out everyday in A-Stan and Bagdad, How many CO19firearms officers have been killed in the line of duty ?

SAS troopers also rotated through special projects/CT troop where these skills inc tubular, ie in planes, trains etc are constantly practised.

.....Anyway must crack on.

Can you at least give us an indication of your background?

It would help this discussion if we knew where you are coming from.

eroo

In the interest of this forum, could we just drop this? Speaking personally.. not only is this stuff way above my head, but I have no interest in it. Not that my personal preferences matter.. but I just think that any new posters coming along seeing a thread like this or the newly formed 'Special Forces' thread will think otherwise about posting imo.

Just me 2yoyo's

Eru

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

One last one I could not resist.

I assume you agree with everything else I said then?

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Threre is alot of fricton between SAS trainers and units like CO19, who are v far up their own a*****, arrogance is borne out of ignorance.

To the point where units like CO19 believe they are now more proficient then SAS CT teams.

What SAS trainers? I actually agree, some people are very arrogant.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

The SAS do not sit on their arses they are constantly employing the above skills in Iraq A-stan in a v demanding theatre, I have previously linked, you ignored that link. Dozens of entries are carried out everyday in A-Stan and Bagdad,

Its A or B. Either they are training 6 out of 7 days or they are running around Iraq 24/7. which is it? Either they are training a lot or they are not training at all.

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

How many CO19firearms officers have been killed in the line of duty ?

Sorry but is it your arguement that being killed by the bad guys shows how damn hot an operator a unit is? I always assumed getting bad guys and living showed how good you were. All this time arresting and handcuffing prisoners and it turns out Im bloody terrible at my job. :eek: I guess when it comes to Iraq the best operatives are the terrorists then seeing as they are getting killed more than the SAS are?

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

SAS troopers also rotated through special projects/CT troop where these skills inc tubular, ie in planes, trains etc are constantly practised.

A or B my friend. Training or operational? And shouldnt that be Planes, traines and automobiles?

By the way, I have no doubt that the SAS are damn good at what they do just like I respect the ARW as well and in fact, army boys in general. I just find it strange that a busy specialist like yourself is so concerned by what the police are getting upto. Especially when the only evidence of them being put up against eachother supports the police.

On a lighter note:

eight heavily armed SAS men were arrested by the Gardai on the southside of the border at a place called 'Flagstaff' near Omeath, in Co. Louth. (http://www.patfinucanecentre.org/cases/ludlow/ludlow99.htm). SAS? CO19? ERU? Pffff, all it takes is a good aul Garda in his tunic, shoes and wooden baton!

Eru

eroo wrote: »

In the interest of this forum, could we just drop this? Speaking personally.. not only is this stuff way above my head, but I have no interest in it. Not that my personal preferences matter.. but I just think that any new posters coming along seeing a thread like this or the newly formed 'Special Forces' thread will think otherwise about posting imo.

Just me 2yoyo's

Here, just cause you dont like my new thread you git! Anyway, its only 1 thread within dozens. Theres plenty for everyone.

eroo

Eru wrote: »

Here, just cause you dont like my new thread you git! Anyway, its only 1 thread within dozens. Theres plenty for everyone.

Ya I just thought I'd let you know what I think of yer threads!!:p

Paulzx

Maybe i don't have my finger on the pulse but what the hell have Special Forces got to do with the Emergency Services?

CLADA

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

I know that for a fact, it was also in the media.

That says it all for me :rolleyes:


Say hello to the three billy goats gruff the next time they go trotting over your bridge.

JonAnderton

Sorry for my absent today, I've been at work trying to convince my guvnor to double the number of rounds I'm issued... The request for a three round burst trigger group MP5 was also declined....

We've had your opinions (the basis and background of which we are unaware) and we've had the posts of the experiences from first hand knowledge of firearms officers from Ireland (CLADA for one, and more I'm sure but don't know your alter egos) and the Met (meself, who I think is genuine.. :P) along with that of serving and past unarmed officers... all of whom seem to disagree and dispel your 'accounts'. ... 'tactically withdraw'?

ps You've been supplied with an example of the gards daring to only fire one shot, here's a couple of examples from the UK..

IPCC report from Surry shooting

Earl White

Harry Stanley (not heard of him???) shot once in the hand and once in the head by two officers.

Bloke shot in the back of a car in Brent a couple of years ago, one shot.

There's more mate, you just havent heard of them...for whatever reason... :rolleyes:

And as you seem to believe a lot of what is found on the internet...
Standard Read down to "Each officer is trained to fire a single shot in response to a threat and then make a new assessment of the situation before firing again.".. come on, even The Evening Standard is better informed mate...

The news usually just says "person shot by police" followed by 'witness' accounts which say they heard 'several loud bangs'.. Windows being put in, suspects them selves shooting or a number of officers firing???

I'm interested in this evaulation of the MP5 The Met did. Reps go to all the trade shows (DSEI, SHOT, Etc) and I'm sure they've had a look at them but there's never been any intention to replace the MP5... When a different weapon was needed for another...'specialist role', the G36 was chosen... for more reasons then the fact it didnt use armour piercing rounds... :rolleyes:

Trojan911

Jon,

A buddy of mine was over with me recently who used to work with me at DM, he is now Royalty, I pretty sure he mentioned that the Met were phasing out the Glock in favour of the Sig in the not so near future. Was I hearing correct?

I'm heading over to London next month & will be staying with him for five days so I can run it by him then if you haven't heard.

JonAnderton

Now thats interesting... I haven't heard that but might make some enquries when I get to speak to someone reliable... Any idea why?.. the Glock seems to be working out fine. Can't se them going over to a single action capable gun, so whay change.. Glock's simple.. Coppers need simple... Start giving them decocking levers and hammers... Dread the thought

If so, will probably be the one Essex has, think it's the SP2022 but am open to correction...

If that is the case, I wonder what will happen to the 30,000 Glocks John Stevens brought after 9/11... (you must have heard that one too..:D)

Trojan911

JonAnderton wrote: »

Now thats interesting... I haven't heard that but might make some enquries when I get to speak to someone reliable... Any idea why?..

Just dropped him a text, I'm sure he did tell me why, but we were after downing a few of the "black ones" at the time so the grey matter was slowing down.....

@ Happyhappy,

Never trained on the Glock but owned a Beretta semi auto 9mm privately before the sec1's were revoked in the UK & have fired the Glock. I just don't like them. The feel, the bulky & plastic look the "no safety" feature.

JonAnderton

I've never fired a Garda Sig either...:) but have handled one.

The glock doesn't have the decocking lever so that's one less thing to worry about. Also,the frame and outer of magazine are polymer which makes it lighter.

You hit the nail on the head with the cleaning comment. Since new armoury procedures have been put in place, some guns don't get the love and attention they deserve. Some don't even get wiped down when brought in from the rain. The Glock is a very hardy and reliable weapon.

Also, protection and surveillance teams use the Glock 19 (as opposed to the standard issue 17) which is basically a smaller version. Changing to the sig might mean two different training programs, armourers kit, etc.

Also of note, not only do you have the cost of the guns, all our holsters will have to be changed (they're safariland moulded 6280 or 6004's for uniform wear and a variety of moulded or leather for concealed carry), not saying it wont happen though. They did it with the model 10's so it's possible... but that was a major leap, going from revolver to self loading pistol which had to be done... I like the Glock and as much as I admire the Sig, and I think, personally, would prefer a P226R or P229R, I don't really see what benefits the management would see to change. But the management do dosome crazy things...

Do you have an option betwen the P226 and the P229?

cherrypicker555

deadwood wrote: »

He knows it for a fact.

That's good enough for me.

Must have been sick the day uniform Gardai were running around with uzis.

Luck for you the link is down.


<h3 class="r">Gardai concerned about insufficient firearms and training facilities<a href="javascript:void(0)" id="LXPLSS_1285408595U1">

4 May 2008 ... Gardai use the Uzi as a side-arm to complement a smaller firearm, usually a handgun. "It is used in certain situations by authorised gardai. ...

www.tribune.ie/article/2008/may/04/gardai-concerned-about-insufficient-firearms-


<1169 And Counting.....
The uniformed garda on his left turns to the plainclothes garda and grasps his shoulder - this uniformed garda is holding the Uzi submachine gun which was ...



GARDA GUN FIRE : WHO TO BELIEVE.......?
Close analysis of television news film of incidents last month at Emyvale suggests a garda's gun went off accidentally . But that is not what the Minister of Justice told the Dail .
GENE KERRIGAN looks at the evidence.
From 'MAGILL' magazine , June 1987 .

cherrypicker555

TheNog wrote: »

Can you at least give us an indication of your background?

It would help this discussion if we knew where you are coming from.

I did previously post it, its in NITAT.

JonAnderton

Keep us updated with that...cheers mate @Trojan

Trojan911 wrote: »

The feel, the bulky & plastic look the "no safety" feature.

Agree they are a bit chunky... Don't mention 'No Safety', thats been discussed here before... It has three internal safties which I trust not to make it go bang unless the trigger is pulled.

JonAnderton

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

I did previously post it, its in NITAT.

Right, but what gave you the experience to do that?

and when was that?

and what has that to do with Armed Policing?

For those confused by the google results..it's either

Northern Ireland Training and Advisory Team

or

National IT Appitude Test
Judging by the previous post, I'm guessing it's the former...

hk

happyhappy wrote: »

do you know what the main differences between the sig and glock are jon?? i'm trained in sig and find it grand to operate once it is cleaned very regularly. i have only seen glocks that are seized from criminals but have never used one. is the glock better do you think??

mods i know it is slightly off topic of battering rams but i think a worth while question!!!

The Glock has no external safety device, ie safety catch and because it is single action only it does not have a protruding hammer, it has a middle trigger safety feature, which must be depressed before the main larger trigger can be depressed. The idea is that if the edge of the trigger catches in the holster it wont go off despite having no safety catch.The sig range of firearms tend to have a safety catch and possibly a decocking leaver depending on the model. The purpose of the decocking leaver is to decock the hammer after a round has been chambered, once decocked the firearm is now in double action mode similar to a revolver, ie when you pull the trigger the hammer cocks to the rear and further pulling the trigger causes the firearm to discharge. Double action firearms are much harder to fire because the trigger pressure required is much greater, thus the reason revolvers do not have safety catches. Having a decocking leaver on a pistol allows a round to be chambered where there is an elevated threat situation, the firearm is then decocked and returned to the holster without applying the safety catch if desired and then basically carried in the same state in which a loaded revolver is carried. I have fired both and more and the sig is by far one of the most inherently accurate pistols available, I really do not like the glock and can achieve much better percision shooting with the sig, the HK is similar to the sig but not quite as accurate. The sig tends to be more tempermental and requires more care. However all three of these firearms are capable firearms for duty purposes.

cherrypicker555

JonAnderton wrote: »

Right, but what gave you the experience to do that?

and when was that?

and what has that to do with Armed Policing?

NITAT trained the RUCs armed and covert treams as well as Garda survillence units "unofficially".

Today we are called the SRR, previously 14 Intelligence company.

Anyway, too busy to post.


CP.

JonAnderton

hk wrote: »

The Glock has no external safety device, ie safety catch and because it is single action only it does not have a protruding hammer, it has a middle trigger safety feature, which must be depressed before the main larger trigger can be depressed. The idea is that if the edge of the trigger catches in the holster it wont go off despite having no safety catch.The sig range of firearms tend to have a safety catch and possibly a decocking leaver depending on the model. The purpose of the decocking leaver is to decock the hammer after a round has been chambered, once decocked the firearm is now in double action mode similar to a revolver, ie when you pull the trigger the hammer cocks to the rear and further pulling the trigger causes the firearm to discharge. Double action firearms are much harder to fire because the trigger pressure required is much greater, thus the reason revolvers do not have safety catches. Having a decocking leaver on a pistol allows a round to be chambered where there is an elevated threat situation, the firearm is then decocked and returned to the holster without applying the safety catch if desired and then basically carried in the same state in which a loaded revolver is carried. I have fired both and more and the sig is by far one of the most inherently accurate pistols available, I really do not like the glock and can achieve much better percision shooting with the sig, the HK is similar to the sig but not quite as accurate. The sig tends to be more tempermental and requires more care. However all three of these firearms are capable firearms for duty purposes.

Glock is Double action only (DAO) and has Three safeties. Trigger safety as described, internal drop safety and firing pin safety. Glock are carried in condition 1. Loaded and made ready.

The trigger pull on Met service pistols is hevier (like the New York trigger pull) to lesson accidental discharges.

I thought Sig service weapons almost always had a decocking lever with new versions incorporating the DAK. I wish I could find the old post on this to prevent all this being posted again...

JonAnderton

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

NITAT trained the RUCs armed and covert treams as well as Garda survillence units "unofficially".

Today we are called the SRR, previously 14 Intelligence company.

Anyway, too busy to post.


CP.

Ahhh...Red Team....

Army... Not law enforcement...

Also, RUC armed policing is different to the Met and the gards, and in fact, PSNI ARV's (with ARV style tactics) are only now being introduced and having training done by 19.

Actually, we've got a bit of involvement at the moment with SRR (you still in???)

hk

JonAnderton wrote: »

Glock is Double action only (DAO) and has Three safeties. Trigger safety as described, internal drop safety and firing pin safety.
Yep, sorry my bad, forgot it was DAO

CLADA

JonAnderton wrote: »

I thought Sig service weapons almost always had a decocking lever with new versions incorporating the DAK. I wish I could find the old post on this to prevent all this being posted again...

All you have to do is ask

Starts at post 28.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055431439&page=2

JonAnderton

Oh lifesaver.... cheers...

Questions about the Glock.. Please refer to above...

JonAnderton

Eru wrote: »

Sorry but is it your arguement that being killed by the bad guys shows how damn hot an operator a unit is? I always assumed getting bad guys and living showed how good you were. All this time arresting and handcuffing prisoners and it turns out Im bloody terrible at my job. :eek: I guess when it comes to Iraq the best operatives are the terrorists then seeing as they are getting killed more than the SAS are?

I had a lot I wanted to say about all these post's on the other thread, but it seems to you've said it all for me...

Eru

JonAnderton wrote: »

I had a lot I wanted to say about all these post's on the other thread, but it seems to you've said it all for me...

Ha well evidently I said it all for Cherry Picker as well considering he decided against posting here. Well doesnt matter cause I reckon its better on the board and my blood pressure if he is just wacked on the aul ignore list

Eru

Paulzx wrote: »

Maybe i don't have my finger on the pulse but what the hell have Special Forces got to do with the Emergency Services?

You dont know and your a paramedic? God help us all! :eek:

iceage

hk wrote: »

JonAnderton wrote: »

Glock is Double action only (DAO) and has Three safeties. Trigger safety as described, internal drop safety and firing pin safety.
Yep, sorry my bad, forgot it was DAO

If you had handled a glock and recieved a proper safety brief on one.....how could you EVER forget it is double action, and has three safetys ???

I once said I would stay out of ES, cos I'm not a cop, Para medic or Fireman....seems theres a lot of guys in here who should take the same advice. Now I'm off back to the Airsoft forum where I belong Cos I'm a Walt!! :P

TheNog

Posts moved from Battering Ram thread to this thread. More suitable me thinks. I realise some of the posts at the beginning are out of wack but sure hey, get used to it!!

Eru

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Garda survillence units "unofficially"..

Ah FFS, :rolleyes:

Cherry, do yourself a favour. Just stop posting. No one abelieves you here anymore than the boys and girls in the Military forum do, or the politics forum, or the sex and sexuality forum............

CLADA

Eru wrote: »

Ah FFS, :rolleyes:

Cherry, do yourself a favour. Just stop posting. No one abelieves you here anymore than the boys and girls in the Military forum do, or the politics forum, or the sex and sexuality forum............

Theres a sex and sexuality forum :eek:

And to think I've wasted all this time here with you lot, I'm heading over there now and I may be gone for some time. :P

santosubito

hk wrote: »

Off topic as it might be certain things said warrant reply, some has been said but i feel i can add a little.There are many reasons why double tap is inappropriate to use:1. As stated, every time you squeeze the trigger there must be an immediate threat, and you must use minimum force for the situation at hand. One shot reassess and fire again if necessary.2. No police unit anywhere or military unit outside of SF for that matter can spend the required time on range to sufficiently reach and maintain the accuracy required for double tap, firing rounds fast is no use if your in danger unless they hit the target, not to mention the potential problem with background.3. There have been many studies which show how the body reacts to being shot. Normally there is a short period of numbness prior to the shock affecting the body. It has been found that two shots fired almost simultanuously will not have the same level of shock as two rounds fired seperatly. Furthermore the body quickly adapts to the the shock, and it is less likely that third and subsequent shots will have the effectiveness of the first two. Remember the aim is to incapasitate and remove the threat, not to kill, plenty of rounds will achieve a kill, but depending on how they are fired my not incapasitate as quickly as required. One or two well placed shots may achieve incapasitation, hopefully without loss of life.4. Uzi Vs MP5, this arguement is going on for years. I have fired both and find no major difference in accuracy, if someone can shoot they can shoot and for the most prt the gun plays a very small part in accuracy. The difference between open bolt and closed bolt results in minor accuracy differences on first shot only, Ie a double tap with either gun would have similar inherent accuracy on the second shot anyway. Remember a good shooter with a bad gun will always do better than a bad shooter with a good gun.

Forgive my ignorance about double taps and all things to do with guns. But If I recall correctly from the John Carthy inquest, he was shot four times, by two gardai.
I don't know if that is what is called a double tap, or (not being flippant) they just shot twice each. I mean, is a double tap two shots immediately after one another? Or is there a pause?
[Edit: now that I think about it, I think the evidencde was each member fired once, then again. I must get some copy from a paper.]

CLADA

santosubito wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance about double taps and all things to do with guns. But If I recall correctly from the John Carthy inquest, he was shot four times, by two gardai.
I don't know if that is what is called a double tap, or (not being flippant) they just shot twice each. I mean, is a double tap two shots immediately after one another? Or is there a pause?

Oh Sh1t the journalist has arrived only joking.

Pictures paint a thousand words, the piece of video shows exactly what double tapping is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbg2s2bfjhw

eroo

JonAnderton wrote: »

I've never fired a Garda Sig either...

Thank God, think of his poor family if you had!



/ya ya I'm going

deadwood

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

Luck for you the link is down.


<h3 class="r">Gardai concerned about insufficient firearms and training facilities<a href="javascript:void(0)" id="LXPLSS_1285408595U1">

4 May 2008 ... Gardai use the Uzi as a side-arm to complement a smaller firearm, usually a handgun. "It is used in certain situations by authorised gardai. ...

www.tribune.ie/article/2008/may/04/gardai-concerned-about-insufficient-firearms-


<1169 And Counting.....
The uniformed garda on his left turns to the plainclothes garda and grasps his shoulder - this uniformed garda is holding the Uzi submachine gun which was ...



GARDA GUN FIRE : WHO TO BELIEVE.......?
Close analysis of television news film of incidents last month at Emyvale suggests a garda's gun went off accidentally . But that is not what the Minister of Justice told the Dail .
GENE KERRIGAN looks at the evidence.
From 'MAGILL' magazine , June 1987 .

cherrypicker555 wrote: »

NITAT trained the RUCs armed and covert treams as well as Garda survillence units "unofficially".

Today we are called the SRR, previously 14 Intelligence company.

Anyway, too busy to post.


CP.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh............

(Actually, I do a lot of work for charity but I don't like to talk about it)

TheNog

Eru wrote: »

Ah FFS, :rolleyes:

Cherry, do yourself a favour. Just stop posting. No one abelieves you here anymore than the boys and girls in the Military forum do, or the politics forum, or the sex and sexuality forum............

banned for a week for trolling.

Folks,

There will be no more tolerance of our own trollers on this forum so beware

deadwood

TheNog wrote: »

There will be more tolerance of our own trollers on this forum so beware

Can you clarify please?

Not being smart.

iceage

TheNog wrote: »

Folks,

There will be more tolerance of our own trollers on this forum so beware

I take it you meant the opposite TheNog? ....



I'll get my coat.....taxi!

TheNog

deadwood wrote: »

Can you clarify please?

Not being smart.

iceage wrote: »

I take it you meant the opposite TheNog? ....



I'll get my coat.....taxi!

thanks dictionaries, the "no" button on this laptop doesnt like to be used. post edited

Trojan911

JonAnderton wrote: »

Keep us updated with that...cheers mate @Trojan

Jon,

That's a negative, cancel my last. Got a text back earlier. Apparently the Glock is the gun of choice for the Met.

It was the MP5 he was on about being replaced. Apparently they are not being made anymore so the Met will be looking to replace them but have apparently bought a stockpile of them. The rumour is they might be looking at the G36.

(I knew the "Black Stuff" wasn't helping when he was telling me ).....

JonAnderton

ah...now that makes a bit of sense..

HK don't make the MP5 but it is made under licence by some other crowd but can't see the job buying from them. He's right about them buying a load in. I know there's a stockpile held by 19 for emergency issue which we dip into when extra posts come on or there's a big job on but i dont know how many that is..The ARV's have a few G36's originally rolled out for kratos and while the mp5 is a great piece of kit, the G36 would be better for static protection work.ARV's might keep all the 5's and give us the gucci new ones... Or not.