Why Do Police Officers in the United States Carry Rifles?

[front2back]

Decades ago it was rare for police officers to carry rifles. While Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) teams had them, your average Officer Joe was usually just given a pistol and maybe if he was of high rank, a pump shotgun.

Nowadays, however, many local police departments around the US regularly allow "patrol rifles" to their officers. Sometimes these rifles are bought by the department itself, and sometimes it's the officer's own personal rifle.

As scary as this may seem at first, there's actually a decent reason for it, and it mostly revolves around the events of one bank robbery nearly 20 years ago....

The Standard Issue Weapon for US Police Officers is a Handgun....and Handguns Kinda Suck.

Movies have made handguns seem like the ultimate killing machine. Just one shot and the character has just seconds left to live. However, in reality handguns make terrible weapons. They're inaccurate and the ammunition is both small and weak. Common pistol rounds used by police officers are the 9x19mm Parabellum and the .40 S&W (10x22mm). These rounds don't have a lot of energy behind them (usually about 500-700 Joules) and are so small it generally takes multiple pistol rounds and/or hitting a critical organ or artery to kill a person (6/7 people survive handgun wounds). Otherwise they'll just be stunned by the pain and force of the bullet. It's not uncommon to see criminals high on PCP or other drugs absorb more than two dozen pistol rounds and keep fighting. The benefit of these weapons are that they're cheap, light, compact, concealable, and easy to use, however. This is why Officers (and many civilians and criminals) tend to use handguns.

But back to the handguns sucking part. Since the rounds are so weak, they're routinely defeated by body armor. A decent Kevlar vest will defeat most pistol rounds with some distance away from the shooter, and the same goes for 12 gauge shotguns (which are also inaccurate at a distance and lose enough energy to be stopped by the vest). This turned out to be a painful reality for some officers in LA nearly 20 years ago....

The Shootout of North Hollywood, 1997:

Let's cut to the chase: Two bank robbers who are heavily armed manage to keep scores of police officers pinned down and at bay. They were wearing heavy duty body armor, managed to get their hands on an automatic rifle (illegal), had multiple weapons (which one of the robbers shouldn't have had access to due to his criminal history), and had over 1000 rounds of ammo. All the police had were their pistols and 12-gauge shotguns, which were about as effective against the shooters as a paintball gun (you can literally see bullets bounce off of their armor). Eventually after 45 minutes, the robbers died. However, not before needing nearly 700 rounds fired at them, 20 of which struck one in the legs.

The pistol rounds used by the officers and SWAT (SWAT teams generally used submachine guns back then, which fire pistol rounds in rapid succession) were useless against the armored targets. Some officers managed to get rifles from a local gun store which aided significantly in the fight. The aftermath of this shoot out (and similar ones in years to come that involved armored shooters), is what lead to police officers now ditching their submachine-guns for rifles.

Why Rifles are so Much More Effective:

The most common rifle round used by Civilian, Police, and Military rifles is the Remington .223 or NATO 5.56x45mm round (a slightly more powerful version of the .223). It is known for it's use in the AR-15 and the police/military automatic equivalent M16. The 5.56 is called an "intermediate" round, as in it's more powerful and damaging than the 9mm and other pistol rounds, but not as straight up deadly as Hunting/Military Rifle Rounds, namely the Winchester .308 or NATO 7.62x51mm. The goal of Intermediate rounds like the .223 is to incapacitate enemies by causing shock and giving some nasty wounds, rather than straight up killing them like much bigger rounds. It does this by giving a small bullet (5.56mm in diameter, lightweight) a crap ton of energy behind it (about 1,800 Joules, or around 3-4 times as much energy as the 9mm). This results in a high velocity that leads to great accuracy over long distances, decent shock on impact with a body, and good armor penetration.

This is specifically why police like to carry rifles. While the shooters in the Battle of North Hollywood did manage to stop a rifle round or two from penetrating their armor (mainly the inserted plates behind it), it wasn't useless against them as the 9mm rounds. Even if a rifle round doesn't penetrate, it will release enough energy into the body to knock the wind out of a person and cause some internal trauma. That, and it's much easier and safer to aim/fire a 5.56 Rifle at a target than a pump shotgun. Here in this video, you can see the difference in armor penetration between pistol rounds, Intermediate Rifle Rounds, and even a Battle Rifle round at the end.

99% of the time, a police officer will never need a rifle. However, that 1% of the time he/she does need one, it will be there. Active Shooters with body armor and heavily armed gang criminals are becoming a more common sight in today's world, and thus adequate firepower is needed to deal with these scenarios. With recent news of deaths caused by police misuse of force it may seem unnerving that your average cop might just have a rifle in his trunk, but there is a good reason for it.

Thank you for reading, and please leave your questions and comments down below.

[Darkfairie17]

And to be honest, my reaction as a non-American to the question "Why do Police Officers in the United States carry rifles?" is plainly because the criminals probably have something even worse. It's not fair to send a cop in with a small handgun when the criminal potentially has an AK47 or some other big gun.

I've even seen cops in Canada who have big guns. Now of course, that is usually only when a serious situation is unfolding. And I'm sure on one occasion it wasn't police but some tactical team that was on the hunt for some wanted guy. But sometimes you need a bigger gun. Especially dealing with someone super dangerous and unpredictable who possibly has weapons of their own.

[Waffles731]

In Western Rural areas the fact is that chances are good that they carry a high caliber hunting rifle on staff out west THAT WILL GET USED
Its for if a dangerous Animal needs to be put down

[ObscuredBeyond]

LA gangs carry bazookas. It's understandable police would at least want a rifle. Remember that speech at the end of "Batman Begins" about escalation? It's really happening.

"We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy fully automatics. We start wearing kevlar, and they start buying armor-piercing rounds."

Until you can cut the legs out from under the supply chains of organized crime, they will always be able to stay one step ahead of Joe Average law enforcer.

Here's one way to do it: those of you with an ounce of a conscience, bear this in mind: every time you smoke a joint that came from Mexico, you are sponsoring terrorism. So stop doing it. Go local, or quit altogether. And do all you can to ensure your younger siblings adopt this same set of principles.

Make it taboo to get foreign weed. Make it shameful. Make those who push it out to be scum. Shame them. Foreign supplies can't sell supply where there's morally no demand. They will have to get desperate to force sales. And that desperation will expose them. Then, the DEA and others can swoop in and bash their skulls in with giant mallets, if need be.

As long as suckers will keep the demand alive, the lowlifes will always find a way to supply. Destroy the supply chain, and watch the kingpins wither.

Bombing a few fields would be worthwhile too. If not for the long-term ecological damage, a plague of foreign insects to devour the crops would also send a powerful message. They can shoot the good guys' planes down. But what is their might against a legion of genetically-altered locust plague?

[jacquesvol]

@ObscuredBeyond
True.

[JudgmentDay]

Wait, why didn't any police officers or SWAT officers use any Sniper Rifles to take out those robbers? Wouldn't that have worked more efficiently instead of using any other kind of rifles? Or did the firefight occurred at an all-open location where they can't simply just get snipers into place such as high ground or from other nearby buildings to counteract the robbers' heavy assault rifles?

Aren't military-grade or SWAT Sniper Rifles much more potent such as having armor piercing capability and accurate and can hit targets at very long distances? I'm sure police officers can have access to that type or kind of weapon.

I understand that it depends on the situation and location and the proper training to utilize those types of rifles effectively and efficiently as that's another important factor. It's not just the type of weapon but whether the user actually knows how to properly handle it and properly use it in the most efficient and effective way possible and it won't work in every location and in every situation.

[front2back]

Two downsides to the sniper rifle:
-Probably uses much more powerful ammo, which is good for armor penetration yes, but also is more likely to kill the attacker outright and possibly keep traveling through his body and hit someone else behind.

[front2back]

-The sniper rifle would be a long range weapon only, a rifle can still be used at closer ranges.

[JudgmentDay]

Thanks for the clarifications. I understand the goal of police officers of trying to apprehend and capture the criminals alive into custody rather than to kill them. I did hear that the sniper rifles of military grade can puncture through Tank and Aircraft armour so you're therefore probably correct on all accounts.

I also understand that sniper rifle would require a very long distance and proper concealment to be effective, and if the bad guys had them also, then that would a be really bad situation. I get what you mean by that they would not be practical for closer ranges.

What about shots to the arms or legs of the criminals with Sniper rifles, as the goal is always to take them alive into custody whenever possible?

[front2back]

The problem with a shot to the arm or leg with a sniper rifle is the power from the bullet is likely to literally rip that limb off or at least do grave damage, probably them to bleed out and die.

Also, legs and arms are actually very difficult to hit, even with something like a sniper rifle. If that bullet misses, which is likely, it could hurt someone else.

[YourName123]

if it kills the attacker outright, that is a GOOD thing. Saves his future vicitms and lots of middle class taxpayer $$

[YourName123]

I hope not

[MrShinyPants]

Oh thats an easy one, the F. B. I.( Federal Bureau of Investigations) the S. R. U. (Strategic Response Unit) and the S. W. A. T. (Special Weapons and Tatics) units usually carry assault rifles and automatic shotguns and flash bangs etc.. To deal with terrorists and psychopaths and serial killers and other high danger people, as for the regular officers, it is because in the past 6 years there has been a influx of military grade weapons, vehicals and armor and ammunition being sent to police stations all over the country privided by the government. Along with a new training manual and new qualifications, the training manual now includes how to identify terrorists and protesters and right wing extremists and Christians and how to kill them. I am not joking it is actually in the new manuals, furthermore, the new qualifications include the officer has to be willing to kill protesters and innocent civilians if the need arises. Even furthermore the #1 on the US's terrorist watch group list is right wing extremists and Christians, as well not long ago the senate passed a bill allowing them to pass bills the same day without a need of a public vote on certain matters and then in the same day passed two others. One including the ability for the president to assassinate any civilian they deem fit and for the president to declare martial on his or her own citizens during peace time. Also in the police training manual, the description of a terrorist states anyone with a bushy unruly beard, someone who has more then 7 days worth of food in their fridge, someone discontent with the current government and laws, someone known to be pro gun laws, the descriptions go on.

[MrShinyPants]

Oh and it also informs how to load captees and prisoners into the feema campa that are being built around the country, my atate already has 26 of them, feema is another term for concentration camp, it also instructs them on military procedures and shock and awe tatics and so fourth

[MrShinyPants]

Feema camps* my state* sorry tiny touch screen buttons on my phone

[meatballs21]

Very good take. I remember when the police here in Toronto were getting upgraded from their old revolvers to modern Glocks, and there was the usual outcry and handwringing about so much firepower.

The reporter asked the cop if this was to bring their firepower in line with what criminals had, and the cop replied that to have that equivalency, Emergency Task Force equipment would need to become standard issue.

Same outcry again recently when they acquired C8 Carbines for some frontline officers, with the alarmist media frothing about "high powered assault rifles" despite not knowing what any of those terms meant.

[NearlyNapping]

What do you mean by carry rifles? I have never seen a cop carry a rifle, not even when they were doing riot control. They often have shotguns or rifles locked up in their cars, but I've never seen them carry one.

As for penetration. How often do cops run into robbers wearing body armor? I bet the large majority of police departments have never had to deal with that.

That video is an extremely unusual circumstance. I don't think police departments should base policy on that type of thing. SWAT should be prepared for that type of thing, but not the regular PD. I'm REALLY surprised that SWAT did not have rifles.

[Nothanks700]

Depends on the area. Officers In small town iowa do not need rifles- meth addicts don't wear bullet proof vests and are fairly slow moving if thy aren't high. Where as, North Hollywood or South Central LA have an obvious need to militarize their police force. The problem is that even small towns have ridiculous weapons for the crime rate, and it just leads to unnecessary deaths. My thought is that, the national guard or state police should intervene in those rare instances when extra force is neccessary is low crime areas. Otherwise, handguns should suffice.

[JRICHARDS1996]

The North Hollywood Shootout in 1997 was in large part responsible for the current militarization of the police. If my memory is correct, it was when automatic weapons became available to regular police units. Bush's policies in the aftermath of 9/11 "War on Terror" has also played a huge role.

[Phoenix98]

They carry rifles among other weapons because criminals have access to military grade weapons and sometimes body armor.

And a 9mm standard issue round is not gonna do much agaisnt a military grade firearm that fires bigger more power rounds at higher speeds and longer distances.

[Rissyanne]

I think they should carry what ever helps them in their job.

[Darkone1]

Mini gun is better,
killbuckets.blogspot.com/.../...nigun-m134-x3.html

Even the gun motor voice will scare them.

[MrAtticusLebowski]

yeah man, after the Hollywood shootout you saw cops carrying more rifles around here. They always seemed to have shotguns though. Even our CHP bike cops carry shotguns.

[front2back]

Shotguns certainly have their uses, especially in close quarters. However when it comes to dealing with an armored target, especially one at a distance, they become a hazard more than anything else.

[TadCurious]

I'm all for the police having the tools they need to deal with the threats they might face. And historically, law men in the Old West used to carry lever action Winchesters.

[jacquesvol]

Lever action Winchesters used.3030 carbine or.44 revolver ammo. Not much more.

[jacquesvol]

The 5.5 mm and the 9mm Parabellum military cartrdges are considered good enough by the NATO and the Russian armies and the majority of armies in the world but US cops want more?

[front2back]

They're good enough for SIDEARM use. That's why soldiers across the world carry pistols, as back ups. The rifle has been and still is the weapon of choice for militaries world wide for 100's of years. That's why the police use the 5.56mm

[Waffles731]

You try putting down a bear or cougar with a nine mill

[jacquesvol]

@Waffles731 Try putting down an elephant or rhino with anything but the heaviest rifles.

[jacquesvol]

@front2back For paramilitary 'work' SWAT teams can be militarily armed.

[Waffles731]

Exactly,
There's a good reason why people in northern states and out west have rifles on hand

[Waffles731]

Its the same thing in a lot of Canada,
the Canadian government issues carry permits for handguns for people working in the wilderness,
They carry really large caliber weapons.
There are 20.1 weapons in civilian hands for every 100 people in Canada

[Waffles731]

Also most elephant hunters just used the old lee enfield actually

[jacquesvol]

@Waffles731 a cougar will not survive a 9 mm. A bear will still be dangerous but how manh cops meet bears on their beat?

[Waffles731]

It depends on the region,
Go up north, or out west and yes, Animal attacks happen frequently enough that they keep a large caliber rifle in their trunk.
Its the local PDs job in case of animal attack to after the person is either dead or airlifted (frequently more than two states away) to hunt it down

[front2back]

Just a heads up, all SWAT is is regular police officers with a bit of extra training and certification. A good bit of officers are also in SWAT.

[jacquesvol]

@Waffles731 Rigby.500 nitro express, Weatherby and similar .416 M specialty rifles.
But the basics of Weatherby look a lot like Lee Enfield ao Mauser 1898 descendants.

[Waffles731]

The thing was that those rifles had to be custom made and were extrodinarily expensive.
The game wardens, and everyone else who wasn't filthy rich and was just in the area usually used a plain old bolt action,
Even some very rich people ended up using a regular bolt action rifle, Ernest hemmingway for example

[Waffles731]

I watch a youtube series called forgotten weapons its fairly addicting,
I mean its not that series about 18th century cooking, thats just fucking hyponotic

[jacquesvol]

@Waffles731 the Weatherby and Remington big caliber elephant rifles are bolt action, like the Mauser 98 and the Lee Enfield.
Purdey, Holland & Holland , Rigby elephant rifles are double barrel rifles, made to special order at astronomic prices ( Weatherby isn't cheap either)

[Anonymous]

But I wonder why they never use it at terror attacks? The terrorists are shooting 100s of people and the police takes hours to get rid of them?
Even after a few weeks training on my assault riffle with 5.56mm rounds I was able to headshot or T-shot a moving target at a distance of more than 200m in 299 of 300 shots.

[lime_rampljuset]

Criminals get good weapons, so police need good weapons to fight criminals.

[Waffles731]

Out west, and up north in rural areas,
Police officers carry rifles, not assault rifles but they'll have a bolt-action rifle in their trunk,
Unlike a lot of areas in the states, this is VERY likely to be used in the line of duty as its not for killing people its for putting down an animal that poses a danger to the public or has already killed someone

[Jersey2]

@Waffles731 Out west and in rural areas you need a more powerful rifle and more accurate. That would be a bolt action rifle. Police carry AR-15s and M-16s at times (only the latter is an assualt weapon). Their rounds can only go 300 meters accuratly and that is with an 18 inch drop (so you need to air 18 inches higher at 300 meters which means air at the top of the head and the bullet will hit center mass; ie, chest. A good bolt action will easily hit at twice that distance.

[Jersey2]

Aim* not air

[Nicolás25]

Of course but then if criminals didn't get their hands on good weapons in the first place or any weapons at all...

[Jersey2]

@Nicolás25 wow, great thinking. We should also make herion illegal so people don't get that too.

[Hydra6544]

Anyone can use this explanation for someone who is about 12 years and up
There is a use of force continuum that all police follow and all officers want to be one step above the bad guy (bad guy has a pole a lone officer draws his pistol)

[John_Doesnt]

So a freak accident happens 20 years ago and our response is to put a bunch of high powered guns into the hands of a person with only 6-8 weeks of training on how to use it?
Could this nation get any more retarded?

[zagor]

Freak accident? It was a planned bank robbery.

[John_Doesnt]

@zagor you obviously don't understand what a freak accident is, because you're a freak accident.

[zagor]

Wow, what a deep, insightful comment.

[BlueEyedHipsta]

Our police officers here don't even carry guns on them they avoid using them as much as possible.

[QuestionMan]

Where is that?

[front2back]

Police forces in the US are trained to always try and use pepper spray, a baton, or a taser as the first option but those aren't exactly useful when you have many armed criminals out there. Cops in the US rarely use their guns (despite what the Internet makes it seem), because they're a last resort and they don't carry a lot of ammo.

[BlueEyedHipsta]

Guns here in New Zealand aren't as easily available hence there not being much of a use for them as an everyday thing on an officers belt.

[FallOutBoy2001]

But again clearly the solution to the gun problem in America is more guns...

[front2back]

@FallOutBoy2001 the solution is less guns in the hands of bad men. In Switzerland more than 50% of the population has a gun, but they make sure the only people that have one are mentally stable and trained.

[YourName123]

FallOutBoy2001 - That's correct. Until this year, when Obummy told all his brothers to go attack the cops, murder rates had been declining every every single year at the same time as private assualt weapon and overall gun ownership SKYROCKETED. So according to facts, you areabsolutely correct.

I know anti gunners will hate what the actual data says

[BlueEyedHipsta]

Exactly, we have strict rules regarding firearms, you can own and use a sporting shotgun, rifle and pcp air rifles with a standard firearms license, anyone with that person without a licence is allowed to use it as long as the license holder is close enough to have control.
Then you need additional endorsements to ur licence to be able to own and use pistols for target shooting, collect pistols and restricted weapons or to be able to stage theatrical performances that involve them, to possess or use military style semi automatic weapons.

You have to take a firearms safety course and sit a test, a standard lisence costs 126.50 NZD and endorsements are 204 NZD.

[BlueEyedHipsta]

The application form as well as drivers license, proof of the safety course completion, two recent passport style photos, three documents to prove your identity, contact details of two referees (one must be spouse or next of kin, the other must be over 20 and unrelated) and a receipt from the post office proving you paid your fees needs to be taken to the police so they can do background checks and interview you as well as your referee's, they also check out you storage plan.

So yeah it's not an easy process

[YourName123]

we like freedom in the USA. To each his own

[jacquesvol]

@fron2back
"Police forces in the US are trained to always try and use pepper spray, a baton, or a taser as the first option"
I read a few reports where cops didn't bother to try using less than a gun against unarmed suspects.

[jacquesvol]

@front2back

[FallOutBoy2001]

@jacquesvol most police I know have admitted to only being fully trained in using the gun

[jacquesvol]

@FallOutBoy2001 that's part of the problem.

[jacquesvol]

For someone who only has a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

[BlueEyedHipsta]

Take the guns off the belt of every day roaming officier and any issues that arise they would reach for their taser. They only reach for the gun because it is the most powerful option even when that much force isn't needed.

There is always going to be the issue of unfair use. The US have people getting shot who were unarmed and non provoking and we have people getting tasered who were the same. Difference is one is life threatening the other is not.

[zagor]

Yeah, that's a lot easier when you have no borders and the nearest neighboring country is a thousand miles away.

[Saoirse_Nua]

I would assumed the main advantage of rifles is that it lessens the need for close quarter contact in a heavily armed situation.

[jacquesvol]

But rifles are clumsy for use by patrol cruisers or when entering a building.

[Saoirse_Nua]

@jacquesvol Quite true - I was just thinking of standoffs, I suppose if you were doing a lot of moving around, handguns might be better - I am the last person you should ask about guns, I know absolutely nothing about guns,

[AynonOMouse]

As soon as I saw the question I thought it was because of that robbery in LA where they had body armor and the 9mm bullets just bounced off.

[MrAtticusLebowski]

Yep, I remember LAPD having to hit up a gun store mid shoot out. It was a crazy scene.

[AynonOMouse]

@MrAtticusLebowski I saw the videos of it again in my Criminal Justice courses a ways back.