Which Duty AR is King?

Am Shooting Journal ^ | 2/18/2019 | N Perna

[w1n1]

Nick Perna, a former soldier and currently a cop, weighs in on whether the M16A2 or M4 is a better overall weapon system. Age equals experience. One of the few perks of getting old is that you get exposed to more things throughout the course of your life. This includes weapon systems. I've been making a living with a firearm since the late 1980s.
In jobs ranging from the military, bounty hunting and law enforcement, I’ve carried a wide variety of handguns, long guns, crew-served weapons and other things that go “Bang!” I’ve personally bore witness to the development of the M16/M4 weapon system throughout my adult life.

My first experience was with the M16A1. I carried the triangle-gripped Vietnam-era weapon in the 1990s as an ROTC cadet and later as a member of the National Guard in Florida and California. It was full-auto, which was nice. The fore grips were a little flimsy and could bite at one’s hands at times. The rear sight was somewhat unsophisticated compared to later models, but it worked fairly well.

Later, while on active duty with the 82nd Airborne, I was issued an M16A2. I had longed to carry one since I had seen pictures of paratroopers in Panama carrying them during Operation Just Cause in 1989. Compared to the M16A1 it seemed state of the art. Overall, the weapon was better built. A heavier barrel was used, increasing accuracy and durability. The triangle foregrips were replaced with more stout, ribbed ones. The rear sight was replaced with one that could be manipulated with your hand (the M16A1 required the tip of a bullet to be inserted into a detent to adjust it). The one thing the military did that didn’t make sense was replacing the full-auto option on the M16A2 with three-shot burst. Read the rest of M16 vs M4.

[SJSAMPLE]

Why is he calling handguards “foregrips”? There is a difference, and he should know it.

[precisionshootist]

Carbines are for carrying. Rifles are for shootin stuff.

That being said the title is better "duty" weapon and as long as we are talking about military service that's fine but it's not ok for civilian law enforcement. Police officers should never have military weapons or gear of any kind. They are not soldiers and our neighborhoods are not battlefields. There is no law enforcement need for military weapons and mere possession of these weapons and gear including BDUs in colors other than blue are one of the major factors in widespread distrust of the police. The Proliferation of military weapons, gear, training and tactics in law enforcement has corrupted the ideology of our police into an aggressive us against them mindset. The militarization and proliferation of tactical teams has taken our civilian police entirely in the wrong direction. There is no situation that a police officer can not handle with non military civilian only weapons. A Ruger Mini 14, a 12 gauge shotgun and a service pistol is all that is ever needed for a peace officer. Peace officers are also known as the men in blue and that is the only color they should ever wear. Once again our neighborhoods are not battlefields so blue is all that is needed. If the author is former military then we thank you for your service but you are not in the military anymore. Keep your AR for personal use not for "duty".

[grobdriver]

It depends on what you are looking for

Which is the bottom line of every article ever written on this topic.

[T-Bird45]

“There is a difference, and he should know it.”

Here’s your clue from the article for his claim to expert knowledge: “bounty hunter”. You take it from there...

[real saxophonist]

There is a difference, and he should know it.

The fact that he doesn't is about average for 'Am Shooting Journal'.

[USS Alaska]

If I were going into battle, I’d choose the M16A2, but since I don’t plan on a military action, I’ll pass for now.

[USS Alaska]

If I were going into battle, I’d choose the M16A2, but since I don’t plan on a military action, I’ll pass for now.

[USS Alaska]

Sorry, sorry for the double double post post.

[TheDandyMan]

I don’t see why police officers should necessarily be required to wear uniforms that make them mistakable for milkmen. Daily practicality should trump a desired. Several State Trooper/Highway Patrol agencies have a similar look, riding breeches and tall boots as part of the winter uniform. It isn’t tactical, but it’s certainly intimidating. It’s also highly impractical, or so I’ve heard secondhand. Which of the three should matter most?

As for weaponry, if you’re okay with police having Mini-14s, the functional difference between an AR and a Mini, for the majority of situations in which an average user (police included) would use it in, are fairly minimal except for appearance and handling (and I’m assuming any tactical team issued Mini14s would quickly tac them up with black polymer stocks, vertical grips, etc, making them every bit as “scary” as an AR). A nearby town’s officers are issued Tavors. Where do those fall on the acceptability spectrum?

[Bonemaker]

Jack boots are rather stylish for topping off the ensemble.

[Who is John Galt?]

Police officers should never have military weapons or gear of any kind.

AR15s are NOT military weapons - "weapons of war on our streets" is just another 'Big Lie' being pushed by Leftist propagandists. I am not aware of any sizeable military organization on the planet that has adopted semi-auto ARs for general issue (please correct me if I'm wrong). As has already been pointed out, your average police AR15 is functionally equivalent to a Mini-14, or century-old Remington Model 8...

[TheDandyMan]

Supposedly the SS uniform was based on the Massachusetts State Trooper uniform.

The MST uniform itself had a messy start. It was supposed to be loosely based on the French uniform worn circa WWI, as the first commandant had fought and had some connection the to French military (hence the color). But funds were embezzled to pay for it, which was brought to the governor who nixed the plan, leaving the state to pay for, and then store, bolts of pale cloth. After a while it was determined to go ahead with the fabric on-hand after a great deal of debate, in the name of frugality. Hard to imagine politicians being so fiscally responsible.

[buwaya]

Most of the purpose of policemen is to be seen by the public. They are there to “show the flag”, so to speak, to demonstrate the existence of official authority, to threaten or reassure, as the case may be. They must be visible and identifiable from a distance, they must give a non-ludicrous image, and if the public consciousness has retained it, they have to project an air of continuity or tradition, as this adds legitimacy to authority.

Weapons are much less important than the uniform.

[precisionshootist]

AR15s are most certainly military weapons. The current Colt 6920 AR only lacks the full auto fire control group and auto sear and this only due to the NFA. Furthermore the majority of civilian tactical teams posses the full auto versions. Go make your silly argument with a lib.

[buwaya]

Or rather, if weapons are issued, they should mainly be considered part of the uniform.

The real function of police is not to catch or shoot it out with criminals, but to deter them, by being present and visible.

[Georgia Girl 2]

I’d go with the M16 because its made by Sig and has a little more refinement than the Colt M-4. It has a gas piston system instead of the Colt gas impinged system so you can dial it down. This makes it a better weapon for sub sonic ammunition and suppressors.

[Who is John Galt?]

AR15s are most certainly military weapons.

Really? Then you can answer the question I posed - which sizeable military force, anywhere in the world, issues semi-auto AR15s?

The current Colt 6920 AR only lacks the full auto fire control group and auto sear and this only due to the NFA.

Thanks for proving my point. Actual "military weapons" that LOOK like AR15s are capable of full-auto (or burst) fire - unlike civilian AR15s.

Furthermore the majority of civilian tactical teams posses the full auto versions.

And many police departments that have automatic weapons obtained them from the Department of Defense - and they're not identical to civilian AR15s. Police departments don't buy machine guns at Cabela's.

Go make your silly argument with a lib.

It's a "silly argument" ONLY to libs and the ignorant, who can't tell the difference between full-auto and semi-auto...

[precisionshootist]

Sorry about the lib comment but I hate when people slit hairs when arguing in support of militarized civilian police forces. This is a big problem and getting rapidly worse. Here in texas we just had two innocent people murdered and four officers shot in a no knock military raid. The officers were mostly if not all hit by friendly fire. This is what happens when police become soldiers.