When I started in law enforcement, every marked police vehicle carried a 12-gauge, pump-action shotgun. The shotguns stayed in the cars as officers rotated in and out of vehicles each shift. Every officer in the agency qualified with a shotgun annually, including detectives. Every officer was a shotgunner.
On SWAT, we mostly used 9mm MP5 submachine guns. Officers new to the team, including me in 1991, received government-surplus 5.56x45mm M16 rifles because they worked the outer perimeter. The MP5 was a privilege earned by logging time on the team.
One training day, our team conducted live-fire exercises at an Army base with pop-up targets ranging from 25 to 300 meters. I was surprised how easy it was to knock those down at all distances with my M16, compared to more experienced SWAT guys using MP5s. It didn’t take long for MP5 users to usurp my rifle for the rest of the day.
I used my M16 in the live-fire shoot-house as well. It was an old tire house. I didn’t know any better, so the 20-inch barrel was workable for CQB as long as I adjusted it differently depending on the situation. The M16 was more powerful, which made me wonder why we hadn’t switched en masse to 5.56mm weapons. But I was new, and my observations and opinions carried little weight.
The early push for patrol rifles
Around 1995, I began hearing respected voices encourage law enforcement agencies to consider switching from shotguns to .223 patrol rifles. Several national instructors were also urging SWAT teams to move away from pistol-caliber submachine guns in favor of short-barreled 5.56 weapons, including for entry personnel. By then, I carried an MP5, but I believed in the concept of rifles for everyone and joined the push. In an environment with a long tradition of earning our way out of rifles, the idea gained little traction in SWAT and even less for patrol.
I conducted my own ammunition testing and submitted an evidence-based comparison of ammunition and weapon characteristics as part of a proposal to equip patrol officers with rifles. Longstanding traditions and misconceptions cling like tenacious barnacles in law enforcement. In the mid-1990s, many high-ranking decision-makers across the country, including where I worked, refused to consider patrol rifles, believing the M16 or AR15 was simply too powerful.
When reality forced the issue
Then came the North Hollywood shootout in February 1997, when two heavily armed bank robbers wearing ballistic protection engaged LAPD officers armed with handguns and shotguns. The rolling gun battle lasted 44 minutes. [1] The case for rifles in patrol cars finally had its national moment. Some reluctant police leaders started giving in, but not everyone was on board.
My deputy chief cited his former military experience as an inarguable basis of knowledge. He denied the request, claiming, “That thing will shoot through 10 houses!” His rank and influence with the chief ultimately outweighed objective ballistic science.
After a new chief arrived in January 2001, I made a fresh proposal. She approved it. That year on May 16 (I called it “M-16 day”), we conducted our first rifle class for patrol officers. Rifles were optional. We still had mandatory shotgun quals every year. It was another four years before we made shotguns optional and rifles became the mandatory shoulder-fired weapon.
When I see our young officers today, equipped with individually issued rifles and optics, it confirms it was worth it. The ammunition and weapon testing, the proposals and debates, the arguments and rejections, the incremental budget allowances, and the professional perseverance and patience were all worth it.
A new generation, old questions
It is difficult to believe the effort to equip every officer with a rifle — a process that spanned more than 10 years — was a generation ago. Today’s patrol officers have little to no experience with shotguns, and therefore lack a basis for comparing shoulder-fired options. Modern policing faces periodic calls for defunding and incremental disarming. [2] The combination of these leaves space for old questions to resurface.
Although the rationale for issuing and using rifles is covered in every introductory rifle class, I still occasionally hear questions about the feasibility of placing rifles in the hands of every patrol officer. For example, when an officer struggles through multiple failed rifle qualifications, someone inevitably asks whether the rifle should be required for everyone.
I’ll answer. Every patrol officer in America should be trained, required to qualify with, and required to have a rifle on duty. Rifle proficiency and immediate access must be part of a patrol officer’s job description. Failure to demonstrate minimum rifle proficiency, after training and remediation, should be treated no differently than failure to qualify with a service pistol.
Why? Because patrol deals first with the worst. Municipal, county and state law enforcement officers on patrol are the first-arriving protectors, the frontline shield against armed violence in the United States. The rifle, when deployed by trained officers in accordance with policy, [3] is the safest lethal weapon we can discharge in the line of duty.
Why rifles improve safety for officers and the public
Some overlapping reasons include:
1. We all shoot worse with a handgun.
2. An officer whose performance sucks with a rifle sucks worse with a pistol. This is generally true at all skill levels, from the best pistol shooters to the worst; everyone shoots better with a rifle.
3. Each person shoots a rifle with more accuracy than they can shoot a pistol. More accuracy means fewer misses. In an urban setting, every bullet that misses its intended target hits something or someone unintended. Less missing by police officers is safer for the community.
4. Each rifle is inherently more accurate than a service pistol. More accuracy by police weapons is safer for the community.
5. Shooters have one point of contact on a handgun: its grip. In contrast, shooters have four separate points of contact on a rifle: the triggering hand on the grip, the butt against the shoulder, the cheek against the comb, and the support hand on the forend/handguard. More points of contact give the shooter more control over a rifle than their service pistol. More control over the weapon is safer for the community, especially when multiple shots are required.
6. Shot for shot, rifles are more effective (more potent) against human adversaries than pistols. Fewer hits are required to stop the assailant. That means fewer police bullets need to be fired. Fewer police bullets in the air is safer for the community.
7. Rifle bullets penetrate typical house walls a little less than pistol bullets. [4] Less wall penetration is safer for the community.
8. Rifle bullets penetrate an adversary’s soft body armor. Pistol bullets don’t. This is a community safety interest and a matter of officer safety. The sooner an armored assailant is stopped (by bullets penetrating their body armor), the shorter the gun battle is. The shorter the battle, the fewer bullets are put in the air by both sides. Shorter gun battles are safer for LEOs and for the community.
9. In terms of distance, rifles are accurate and effective at much farther distances than service pistols and shotguns. Depending on the physical environment, this may give police opportunities for greater distances against armed assailants. Distance favors the practiced professional. Distance is an officer safety principle. Creating physical distance is often included on lists of de-escalation tactics. [5] De-escalation is safer for the community.
10. In terms of felt recoil, rifles are easier to shoot than shotguns. Police officers are more likely to practice with a shoulder-fired gun that does not hurt when they shoot it. The more police practice with their firearms, the safer their weapon deployments are in the community.
11. Rifles are easier to operate than shotguns. This requires live demonstrations to fully appreciate. Just in terms of ammunition management, 30 rounds of rifle ammo are contained in one tidy, easy-to-load magazine. One spare reload gives the officer another 30 rounds. In contrast, most police shotguns have side-saddle type ammunition for reloads, for about a dozen rounds total (including what’s in the weapon), or no extra ammo at all. Rifles load and reload like pistols, so there is some crossover training between those weapons. Not so with shotguns.
Handguns are the foundational lifesaving weapon for American peace officers. That has not changed. The service pistol is the lifesaver that’s always with us, and lethal danger often does not foreshadow itself in time for us to access a better option. Where an agency can only afford to support one firearm, the service pistol must be it. But that reality comes with a caution: cost notwithstanding, for all the reasons outlined above, communities are less safe when their first-line protectors lack immediate access to rifles.
Shotguns can still serve limited, situational roles in patrol operations, but as a primary shoulder-fired weapon, they offer fewer advantages than modern patrol rifles.
If rifles are optionable for patrol officers, those who struggle with them are likely to forgo carrying them. Over time, inconsistent standards predictably lead to fewer rifles in service. That leaves officers relying solely on a less effective, less accurate pistol at moments when need accuracy and effectiveness matter most, increasing risk to to officers and bystanders alike.
The strongest argument for going without a rifle comes from the best pistol shooters, not the worst. But those shooters also tend to understand a pistol’s limitations — and their own — better than most. As a result, the officers and agents most proficient with a pistol are often the least likely to relinquish a rifle when given the option.
Law enforcement policymakers should establish and enforce rifle access and proficiency as unwavering requirements of a patrol officer’s job. Budget authorities should ensure that every patrol officer is equipped with a rifle. Better still are agencies where secondary responders — detectives and other sworn personnel — also have access to rifles. We do not get to choose when or where a lethal attack begins, or which officer is best positioned to stop it. The more rifles available among commissioned protectors, the safer the community is.
References
1. North Hollywood shootout.
2. In 2021, the WA legislature disarmed LEAs and LEOs of all automatic weapons and all firearms of .50 caliber or greater, which effectively banned police shotguns. In 2022, an amended version re-allowed shotguns, but affirmed WA’s disallowance for automatics and large caliber rifles, along with other so-called “military equipment.” (RCW 10.116.040(3)(a).)
3. 5.56x45mm semi-automatic carbines are a great place to start, not 20” automatic rifles.
4. Comparing bullets of similar design (e.g., FMJ or JHP), 5.56mm rifle bullets penetrate slightly fewer layers of sheetrock than 9mm Luger bullets. Slightly, but measurably less nevertheless.
5. One example is the WA state law defining “de-escalation tactics,” RCW 10.120.010(2).
| NEXT: Administrative handling of the patrol rifle
| NEXT
