DHS says AR15 sporting rifle (and 30 round magazines) suitable for home defense

[rushmc 18]

Well go figure

http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

From the link

Quote

Section C of solicitation number HSCEMS-12-R-00011 is pretty specific. Here is a direct link to the Section C PDF (246KB). My emphasis in bold. Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …

In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.

The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Well go figure

http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

From the link

Quote

Section C of solicitation number HSCEMS-12-R-00011 is pretty specific. Here is a direct link to the Section C PDF (246KB). My emphasis in bold. Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …

In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.

The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

Did you forget to quote the part talking about private citizens needing them for home defense?

All I saw in the parts you quoted was providing weapons for Law Enforcement?

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

Quote

Well go figure

http://radioviceonline.com/department-of-homeland-security-sport-rifle-ar-15-suitable-for-personal-defense/

From the link

Quote

Section C of solicitation number HSCEMS-12-R-00011 is pretty specific. Here is a direct link to the Section C PDF (246KB). My emphasis in bold. Notice the term assault weapon or assault rifle is not used anywhere in the document.

The scope of this contract is to provide a total of up to 7,000 5.56x45mm North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) personal defense weapons (PDW) throughout the life of this contract to numerous Department of Homeland Security components. …

In paragraph 3.1 under requirements and testing standards we read…

DHS and its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.

Isn’t that inconvenient for the gun control politicians? In requirement paragraph 3.9.10, they find a need for a 30-round magazine.

The action shall be capable of accepting all standard NATO STANAG 20 and 30 round M16 magazines (NSN 1005-00-921-5004) and Magpul 30 round PMAG (NSN 1005-01-576-5159). The magazine well shall be designed to allow easy insertion of a magazine.

In paragraph 3.21.2, they again specify the requirement for a 30-round magazine.

The magazine shall have a capacity to hold thirty (30) 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.

Did you forget to quote the part talking about private citizens needing them for home defense?

All I saw in the parts you quoted was providing weapons for Law Enforcement?

The DHS doesn't say that at all - rushmc is being disingenuous (go figure). The author of the piece says that.
The DHS is purely trying to procure a weapon for its LEO's to use.

The rights and wrongs of gun control aside, I'm not sure I agree with the author about an AR being a good home defense weapon anyway - if only from a portability point of view.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[Bignugget 0]

Lol

I liked this part

"This RFP is not for the traditional armed forces. This solicitation is specific to law enforcement who almost exclusively work within and along the borders of the United States. Certainly the threats ICE officers may be subject to are the same exact threats law-abiding residents could be subject to."

I guess thats true if law-abiding residents are randomly out patrolling the border in the middle of the night, or undercover in some sort of ICE sting operation they put together themselves.

[sammer 0]

An AR/M16 is the perfect home defense weapon. The 5.56 doesn't penetrate though sheet rock like the 9mm does (hard to believe but true). Lots of agencies are going to the AR/M16 for just this reason. It's simply safer than having people shooting glocks or MP5's inside apartment buildings.

That and most are going to hit more often with an AR than a pistol.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

An AR/M16 is the perfect home defense weapon. The 5.56 doesn't penetrate though sheet rock like the 9mm does (hard to believe but true). Lots of agencies are going to the AR/M16 for just this reason. It's simply safer than having people shooting glocks or MP5's inside apartment buildings.

That and most are going to hit more often with an AR than a pistol.

Oh cool, I missed that part of the quote from the DHS report, what section was that under?

[sammer 0]

Nugget that wasn't from the report. Just a fact pertinent to the title of the thread. If LEO's think using AR's are safer for entry teams then why wouldn't it apply to other citizens?

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Nugget that wasn't from the report. Just a fact pertinent to the title of the thread. If LEO's think using AR's are safer for entry teams then why wouldn't it apply to other citizens?

Is this a serious question?

They are 2 completely different entities.

What LEO needs to safely do their job is completely irrelevant to what Joe down the street needs.

Come on now.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Did you forget to quote the part talking about private citizens needing them for home defense?

All I saw in the parts you quoted was providing weapons for Law Enforcement?

Oh, snap!

[sammer 0]

You are a nugget. What part of safely shooting in buildings would not apply to you or me? I don't see how who you are working for would matter. Why should a father trying to protect his children be less concerned with safety than a prick like me?

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

You are a nugget. What part of safely shooting in buildings would not apply to you or me? I don't see how who you are working for would matter. Why should a father trying to protect his children be less concerned with safety than a prick like me?

No you misunderstand.

I am worried about my safety.

I am worried about a prick like you (to use your words) having a gun.

Not what LEO thinks they need to use in their job.

And since this report from the DHS does not speak to what (pricks like you) need to do their job.....it really is irrelevant.

[Stumpy 256]

Quote

You are a nugget. What part of safely shooting in buildings would not apply to you or me? I don't see how who you are working for would matter. Why should a father trying to protect his children be less concerned with safety than a prick like me?

Seriously? You don't understand the everyday difference between an LEO and a regular Joe who wants a weapon for self defence? There are lots of things LEO's do to improve their chances that a regular guy wouldn't want to or need to.

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[sammer 0]

No I understood.

Keep worrying.

I still like my MP5 cuz I'm a prick and I don't care (or miss). Your wonderful gubment also gave me a Mk18. I guess only pricks get guns now. Fuck everyone else. They should have different jobs I guess if they want to have the right to defend themselves. Stoopid sheep.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

An AR/M16 is the perfect home defense weapon. The 5.56 doesn't penetrate though sheet rock like the 9mm does (hard to believe but true).

You seriously believe that???

For your reference: http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcj/njpdresources/pdfs/wallboard_test.pdf

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[sammer 0]

Yes I do believe it. Most US LEO's do to. As your report states the 69grn bullet fragments as soon as it hits anything.

The testing we did was all with Mk18's (10.3" barrels 7:1 twist I think). The MP5 did far more damage after going through the sheet rock. I was not expecting that and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Yes I do believe it. Most US LEO's do to. As your report states the 69grn bullet fragments as soon as it hits anything.

The testing we did was all with Mk18's (10.3" barrels 7:1 twist I think). The MP5 did far more damage after going through the sheet rock. I was not expecting that and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it.

69gr is kind of high, many use 55gr or 65gr.

I fully believe that the .223rd will penetrate sheetrock and I'm a LEO.

I also believe that the public should be able to purchase and use anything I have available to me. I also believe that the high level specialized training I have should be available as well. As of right now all the weapons (lethal and less-than-lethal) are available for purchase and anyone can pay to go through the same style training I've had from firearms, to defensive tactics to driving. That is how it should be.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[quade 3]

How would you feel about mandatory training for certain weapons?

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

How would you feel about mandatory training for certain weapons?

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?

I don't like the idea of mandatory training.

Part of the reason is that your analogy doesn't work in that driving is a privilege, not a right as defined. It also implies that if you are unable to complete the training for whatever reason, you will be denied your 2nd Amendment right.

What's my reasoning behind calling driving a privilege and not a right? The Texas Transportation Code 521.457 gives a really great example that I know of off the top of my head (google it).

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

How would you feel about mandatory training for certain weapons?

For instance, if you wanted to own weapon x you could, as long as you went through mandatory training and a proficiency check similar to a driver's test at the DMV?

I don't like the idea of mandatory training.

Part of the reason is that your analogy doesn't work in that driving is a privilege, not a right as defined. It also implies that if you are unable to complete the training for whatever reason, you will be denied your 2nd Amendment right.

What's my reasoning behind calling driving a privilege and not a right? The Texas Transportation Code 521.457 gives a really great example that I know of off the top of my head (google it).

LEO has mandatory training....I think....you said you are LEO so maybe you can speak to if they made you get trained to use the weapons they gave you.

This is another distinct difference between LEO, and Joe down the street.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

LEO has mandatory training....I think....you said you are LEO so maybe you can speak to if they made you get trained to use the weapons they gave you.

This is another distinct difference between LEO, and Joe down the street.

SOME LEO have good training, some do not. I have spent a significant amount of my own money out of my own pocket to equip myself with the tools I need and the additional training I felt necessary.

All of that is available to anyone who wants it. For instance, the last tactical rifle course was taught by Jim Smith (Spartan Tactical). It cost me some money for travel, for vacation time, for the course costs, etc.; however, it was well worth it.

If you're interested about Jim Smith, read Blackhawk Down, he was one of the Delta fighters there.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[sammer 0]

Quote

Quote

Yes I do believe it. Most US LEO's do to. As your report states the 69grn bullet fragments as soon as it hits anything.

The testing we did was all with Mk18's (10.3" barrels 7:1 twist I think). The MP5 did far more damage after going through the sheet rock. I was not expecting that and wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it.

69gr is kind of high, many use 55gr or 65gr.

I fully believe that the .223rd will penetrate sheetrock and I'm a LEO.

I also believe that the public should be able to purchase and use anything I have available to me. I also believe that the high level specialized training I have should be available as well. As of right now all the weapons (lethal and less-than-lethal) are available for purchase and anyone can pay to go through the same style training I've had from firearms, to defensive tactics to driving. That is how it should be.

69 grains is high but it's the green tip shit we all have. Mk262 is better for me but still shows the the same characteristics. 55grn as well. A lot of SWAT teams are ditching the MP5's for this reason.

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

LEO has mandatory training....I think....you said you are LEO so maybe you can speak to if they made you get trained to use the weapons they gave you.

This is another distinct difference between LEO, and Joe down the street.

SOME LEO have good training, some do not. I have spent a significant amount of my own money out of my own pocket to equip myself with the tools I need and the additional training I felt necessary.

All of that is available to anyone who wants it. For instance, the last tactical rifle course was taught by Jim Smith (Spartan Tactical). It cost me some money for travel, for vacation time, for the course costs, etc.; however, it was well worth it.

If you're interested about Jim Smith, read Blackhawk Down, he was one of the Delta fighters there.

Sorry, I think you misread my post.

I was not asking about the quality of the mandatory training.

I was asking if to become a law enforcement officer assigned a weapon, you were required to first receive training on the weapon and aspects related to possessing one?

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Sorry, I think you misread my post.

I was not asking about the quality of the mandatory training.

I was asking if to become a law enforcement officer assigned a weapon, you were required to first receive training on the weapon and aspects related to possessing one?

The training isn't what you think it is.

The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger.

We spent more time in the dojo learning PPCT. We spent considerably more time on learning all the laws and how they apply.

Ever wonder why some cops can fire 15rds and hit nothing but bystanders? The legal system has driven the training away from actual hands on practical training.

That's why guys like me spend a considerable amount of money on our own training out of our own pocket.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Bignugget 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry, I think you misread my post.

I was not asking about the quality of the mandatory training.

I was asking if to become a law enforcement officer assigned a weapon, you were required to first receive training on the weapon and aspects related to possessing one?

The training isn't what you think it is.

The majority of the single week out of the 17-weeks of an academy was spent on firearms. The majority of that deals with the legal aspects and the use of force ideals, not actual time on trigger.

We spent more time in the dojo learning PPCT. We spent considerably more time on learning all the laws and how they apply.

Ever wonder why some cops can fire 15rds and hit nothing but bystanders? The legal system has driven the training away from actual hands on practical training.

That's why guys like me spend a considerable amount of money on our own training out of our own pocket.

Thanks for that. It makes more sense now why you don't think mandatory training is a good idea.

Sounds like a waste of a week to me.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

We spent considerably more time on learning all the laws and how they apply.
…
The legal system has driven the training away from actual hands on practical training.

To be fair, knowing the laws and how they apply is practical training for LEOs. But I get how such training should supplement, not replace, hands on training.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!