Duncan PD gets $46 Military M-16's, must be nice!

[CAR-AR-M16]

Wont they have to be converted to Semi only before the patrol cops get to carry them? Dont PDs have to have special training to have FA weapons?

They do not have to be converted to semi only, but most departments do that. If you read the KSWO article that the OP linked you will see that Danny Ford, the chief of the Duncan PD (and also my Sunday school teacher) said that they have not yet determined if they will do that or not.

 

[WhiteyMacD]

View attachment 22502

Why would it be trolling? Seriously. Read the points I followed up with. No disrespect to LEOs intended, but they dont protect you and I. They can't. Its a logistics impossibility. So if they need those types of weapons to protect us, when they cant...

 

[1shott]

Why would it be trolling? Seriously. Read the points I followed up with. No disrespect to LEOs intended, but they dont protect you and I. They can't. Its a logistics impossibility. So if they need those types of weapons to protect us, when they cant...

Exactly. I was in a conversation the other day with some folks I know, one of which is a local cop. The topic of open carry came up, one of the folks there asked me why in the world would a person want to carry a gun, I pointed to the guy thats a cop and said, cause he cant be my body guard 24/7 and face it there are folks out there that want to do harm to other folks. You can rely on 911 but IMO it is nothing more than government sponsered dial a prayer.

 

[Shadowrider]

Then go buy one...or put on a uniform. It's not like these officers are getting them for personal use. It's duty gear.

One, I would like for it to be shown where I directly said any weapon should be withheld. Two, I can sort of see the point BP was making. Granted, Im not in the know, but I am pretty sure I wouldnt be satisfied with the level of training most LEOs get with an AR and a handgun much less a long gun with a fun switch. This is based off first hand experience and conversation with LEO friends of mine who are not gun people. However, I digress, I wouldnt say I 100% agree with withholding such firearms from LEOs, but I dont 100% disagree with bp either.

I can see both of your points. I know several LEOs and ex-LEOs personally and would have not an inkling of a problem with them being issued MP5s, M4s, M16s, M14s or whatever they thought they needed while working (and hell they can take them home too and keep them when they retire for all I care). On the other hand they are in the vast minority when compared to their peers in regards to firearm proficiency. In other words they know what the hell they are doing. Have you compared the qualification requirements today with say, back in the '70s? To say that the average LEO is proficient is laughable. Some departments might have good qualification requirements. I can attest that I have reliable info that some do not and I'll just leave it at that.

And if we John Q citizens can show we are proficient can we go get one? LEOs are no different than us as far as firearms law is concerned. Or are they?

 

[jfssms]

The Feds say LEO are different, they get posty M16 for 46 bucks, but as CAR said they are still US property bought and paid for. yippee!

 

[UnSafe]

Wow, a bunch of opinions expressed in a polite maner. This is a good thing. It's what makes this forum interesting.

Since many or most LE agencies already have Patrol Rifles, the option of saving a grand or more per rifle is a great thing. Bring 'em on. Select fire? Not sure on that one, but I'd bet their decision to keep or delete it will be based more on liability, rather than any specific tactical capability.

 

[Poke78]

A couple of finer points:

1) It is my understanding that the M4 has superseded the M16 in the fielded military so it's unlikely these weapons were ever "used in Afghanistan", as claimed by the article. Anyone with more direct knowledge may feel free to update my understanding.

2) These weapons were surplused by the military for a reason and that's not likely to be just because they had too many. Barrel condition is not likely to result in optimal accuracy unless these went through a depot-level maintenance/re-build cycle prior to being place in the LESO pool.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

A couple of finer points:

1) It is my understanding that the M4 has superseded the M16 in the fielded military so it's unlikely these weapons were ever "used in Afghanistan", as claimed by the article. Anyone with more direct knowledge may feel free to update my understanding.

2) These weapons were surplused by the military for a reason and that's not likely to be just because they had too many. Barrel condition is not likely to result in optimal accuracy unless these went through a depot-level maintenance/re-build cycle prior to being place in the LESO pool.

Most of the M16's issued in the 1033 program are M16A1's. Some have been in storage their entire life. They are all in excellent condition.

[Broken External Image]

Some are even plain M16's

[Broken External Image]

 

[SMS]

The M4 has not replaced the M-16. There are still a large number of them around...

On the quality issue, it can swing both ways....many issue rifles aren't shot very much at all so the chance of getting a shot out barrel is pretty slim. The .gov excesses equipment for dozens of reasons, being 'unserviceable' is only one of them....and even then the definition is usually stretched.

 

[CAR-AR-M16]

The M4 has not replaced the M-16. There are still a large number of them around...

....

Yes, still lots of M16' around. Here are the M16A2's my students were carrying last month (though some did have M4 stocks installed). 2 of the lower receivers were actually older A1's.