Editor’s note: This article is part of Police1’s Firearms Week, which examines whether officers are equipped for the threats they may face today and tomorrow — from capacity and deployment speed to distance, accessibility and real-world firearm limitations. Thanks to our Firearms Week sponsor, KelTec.
Most officers will never face the kind of worst-case scenario that tests the outer limits of their duty weapon, patrol rifle or ammunition supply. But when that moment comes, the margin for being under-equipped can be measured in distance, seconds and lives.
For Police1 columnist Jason Wuestenberg, a law enforcement consultant and founder of the National Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors Association, the question is not simply whether officers are carrying “enough gun.” It is whether agencies are giving them the right equipment, the right training and a realistic way to respond when an ordinary call turns into the kind of threat most departments hope they never see.
Wuestenberg retired from the Phoenix (Ariz.) Police Department in 2017 after 22 years of service, including 13 years as a full-time firearms and tactics instructor. He retired as a firearms sergeant/rangemaster and has conducted firearms training and instructor development at the state, national and international levels.
Below, Wuestenberg discusses where capacity and distance matter most, why patrol rifles remain a critical part of modern policing and how agencies can prepare officers for the rare but consequential incidents that fall outside the average day on patrol.
Are there particular incidents, trends or lessons learned that have renewed discussions about whether officers have enough firearm capacity and capability for modern threats?
Several high-profile national incidents have renewed the push for law enforcement agencies to establish Designated Marksman (DM) programs or, at least, authorize variable-powered optics on patrol rifles. Incidents ranging from the 2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas and the 2022 Highland Park parade shooting to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk have intensified these efforts. While some agencies have implemented these programs, adoption is not yet widespread.
Regarding ammunition capacity, carrying extra rounds is generally a secondary concern for most incidents. Historically, handgun engagements rarely require officers to exhaust all three of their duty magazines, and rifle engagements exceeding 30 rounds are equally uncommon. This is supported by data from my former agency, which saw over 400 officer-involved shootings during my 22-year career. Increased ammunition capacity is a more legitimate concern for rural officers, however, as backup is often far away when a situation escalates.
In what types of situations do capacity and engagement distance become more significant factors for officer survival and public safety?
Capacity is primarily a concern for rural departments. Distance, however, is a universal tactical advantage. Patrol rifles enable officers to engage armed suspects from a safer distance, allowing for a faster resolution that protects the public. Handguns, by contrast, require officers to close the distance to secure an accurate hit, and that delay can be critical. Agencies that don’t utilize rifles in patrol are shorting their capabilities and increase risk to their officers and the general public.
| RELATED: Why every patrol officer should have a rifle
When people talk about “having enough gun,” what should agencies and officers actually be considering?
I think most agencies handle this issue pretty well. Ensuring their officers have a proper caliber with good ballistic performance, used in a simple and reliable firearm system, is fundamentally key to their safety and success . But that’s only half of the equation. Continuing training on the equipment should be a top priority for administrators. As the saying goes, “Just because you have a guitar, it doesn’t mean you’re a guitar player.”
In the video below, Police1 columnist Todd Fletcher shares a 30-day firearms skills challenge that reinforces a key point raised in this article: training, not equipment alone, is what prepares officers to perform under pressure.
How should agencies think about the gap between the equipment officers carry every day and the worst-case scenarios they may encounter?
That has been a difficult problem for agencies to solve for decades. The standard equipment officers carry today is more than sufficient for 95% of the incidents they encounter; the real challenge lies in preparing for the extreme 5%. Agencies must constantly weigh whether allocating limited budgets for specialized equipment is justified for high-risk, low-probability scenarios. Providing officers with a deployment bag containing extra magazines and medical gear for a worst-case scenario is a relatively low-cost solution. However, funding specialized rifles and high-caliber ammunition to equip select patrol officers for a rare, 400-plus-yard engagement is a much harder expense for many departments to justify.
What role do patrol rifles and other supplemental firearms play in addressing today’s threats?
Patrol rifles are very important in law enforcement. The ability to enage an armed suspect quicker and from farther away provides added safety for both officers and the surrounding community. The rifle-caliber rounds can easily defeat soft body armor worn by a suspect, while pistol-caliber rounds struggle to do the same.
| RELATED: Administrative handling of the patrol rifle
Some argue that increasing firearms capability can create public perception concerns. How should agencies balance those concerns with officer preparedness and safety?
If they send out a community survey, they will likely find that criticism regarding police firearm capacity stems primarily from anti-police and criminal advocacy groups. In my experience, pro-law enforcement communities are rarely concerned with what equipment officers carry, as long as it gets the job done. Conversely, some out-of-touch administrators prioritize public optics over tactical function. Ultimately, there will always be critics — some will complain about the gear officers carry, while others will condemn the agency if officers are under-equipped to handle a critical incident. Lesson number one in leadership is that you cannot please everyone. You must simply do what is best for the mission, your personnel and the greater good.
Looking ahead, do you believe current duty weapon standards are keeping pace with the realities of modern policing? Why or why not?
If you mean duty weapon selection, then yes. I think most agencies do a good job of selecting the right caliber and weapon system for their officers to carry to address today’s threats. If you’re talking about shooting standards, that’s a different story. As I said before, training will always trump equipment. Equipment can enhance current skills, but it’s training that actually improves skills.
Is there anything else agency leaders or officers should be considering when evaluating whether their current equipment is sufficient for today’s operational environment?
Absolutely! When evaluating equipment sufficiency, leaders must look beyond basic inventory checklists and address two core questions: what will be the cost of a high-risk, low-probability failure? And, do their officers have the ability to use the equipment efficiently and effectively? It’s not enough to ask if the gear fits the 95% average day; they have to ask if their procurement strategy protects their personnel when they hit the unavoidable 5% worst-case scenario. Ultimately, capability doesn’t come from the equipment that’s sitting in the patrol vehicle — it comes from a motivated, properly trained officer who can effectively deploy that equipment under pressure. As a very good friend once told me, “We’re not in the business of saving money, we’re in the business of saving lives.”
| NEXT: How police officers can improve handgun reload efficiency and speed
