Law Enforcment using AK-47 vs. AR-15? (US residents)

You'll have to excuse me if I totally scoff at that. I don't care if it is my own bias, I will have it. Their all crooked and twisted and I'll never respect law enforcement.

And no. I'm not a criminal. Although a friend and I did get caught by a cop teepeeing a house, but thankfully it was like the one nice cop in my city. He just told us to go clean up and he'd explain to the homeowners. XD

AK-47 is overrated. Sure it was a masterpiece in weapon innovation but it's age is showing. It is no match for modern guns, unless we are talking about price. Police should choose AR-15's imo.

But i mean, police in our country aren't even aloud tasers, let alone guns.

New Zeland? Japan?

Amd for anyone doubting the AK, here's the Krebs KTR-08.

The AR-15 is more accurate, the smaller caliber bullet may decrease the killing potential (remember that in law enforcement you are trying to catch not kill), you shouldn't worry about jams because you're not generally fighting around mud and sand. It is also easier to modify.
It's a weapon that makes sense for cops.

I've used firearms in the past, thank you very much. A handgun vs an assault rifle is a world of difference. Especially when you take into account the rate of fire. A simple 9mm or whatever handgun you prefer just doesn't stand up compared to the assault rifles the police use. I also think that I shouldn't have to resort to the black market to acquire such weapons.




The statement is hardly false, if you'd take the time to actually understand the words rather than just read them you would have caught that. I should have equal access to ANY and ALL weapons the police use. Currently, there is a huge power gap between police, the "criminals" and the average citizen. Gangs can get automatic weapons while the police drive around with them in the back of the cruiser. This leaves the average (law abiding) person at a huge disadvantage. As criminals will keep trying to one up the police while the police try to do the same. The average person won't get access to these weapons under the current rules.

So lets, say another 9/11 happens. The acting president (for simplicity it's not Obama) declares martial law, suspends the constitution,starts house to house searches, seizing weapons, arresting people without probable cause,etc. What can the people do? Currently, nothing as anybody who had a weapon would be killed easily due to the sheer difference in firepower. Now, if the average citizen could purchase an assault rifle. The police wouldn't be able to just have their way with society. One wrong step and the people could revolt but, politicians (and police) don't like the notion that they won't have the upper hand at all points in time.

People will probably scoff at my example but, we've seen dozens and dozens of Governments turn Facist and/or commit genocide time and again. It's happened before and it WILL happen again.

What this one said. The police have better weapons than the citizens can acquire legally, and this means the police have nothing to fear from doing whatever they want to get what they want. As things stand now, I fear the police far more than any random criminal.

Well...kinda depends. Pretty much anywhere except NY and Cali, assault weapons are easily gotten. For Example, in my home stare of Michigan, there is no restriction on gun families or magazine capacities. As long as it isn't automatic (or it was made/registered prior to 1982) it's all good. That's the way it is in alot of states.

In addition, the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 halted the manufacture of assault rifles for the civilian market and currently limits legal civilian ownership to units produced and properly registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives before May 1986.

In a nutshell, this is bullshit.

Plus, I wanna own an AA-12 damn it! Pulling the trigger on that will give any gun nuts a "man-gasm"

Umm...then what about all the AR-15s currently made by DPMS, Bushmaster, Colt, ect? And all the nice, tasty semiauto AKs? The assault weapons ban expired a couple years ago.

And the AA-12 is the shit. Though I do agree with its 'destructive device' status. AKs and ARs can be taken hunting. An automatic shotgun...I'd prefer playing with those fin-stabilized HEAT shells (yeah, those are more illegal than the AA-12 itself!) IMO the coolest shotgun is the Benelli M4 Super-90, or the Remington 870 w/collapsible stock. (the latter running on cool factor)

Assault rifles have certain details that separate it form things like the Ar-15.

Link.

I'm not as much of a gun fan as you so if you come up with contradicting evidence I'll side with you on it.

Okay, we're using different defs I guess. I consider an assault rifle an assault rifle whether or not it has auto/burst/select fire, but apparently to the feds an AR or semiauto AK is just a normal semi rifle with a really big magazine (and same with the SIG 556, Steyr AUG semiauto, ect). So technically you're right. But still, one doesn't need automatic fire to get good results. I've seen youtube vids of AR's begin fired at around 5rds/sec and still getting damn good groupings. (not sure of AK's, nutnfancy reports that one looses sight every time it fires...not hard to believe, but one thinks that an AK such as the KTR-08 with a heavier fore-end and a stock very close to being in-line with the barrel, recoil is reduced...I'm off topic here, sorry.)

Assault rifles are rifles which are self loading and uses intermediate rounds which are bullets that are a cross between pistol and full powered cartridges( i.e .30, 7.62x56mm) such as the AR 15 5.56mm or the AK 7.62x39. the reasons for this weaker cartridges is that it was a waste for the military to make a long range full powered bullet for short range combat as seen in ww2.

Fully automatic fire is often a feature in weapons but often not used unless for suppressive fire. Soldiers like US train their infantry men to fire them in single shots or short controlled bursts, this is the same for law enforcement. The AR15 is well liked for its accuracy due to its rail/iron sights and stabilized bullet.

When considering a topic like this, you have to think about the mentality of law enforcement vs military. In the military, you don't necessarily have to shoot to kill. Wounding someone may actually be preferable, as you can capture and interrogate the enemy.

In law enforcement/counter-terrorism operations, though, every second counts and a wounded suspect may very well turn his weapon on hostages or detonate an explosive. Thus, it's important to make a sure that when you take a suspect down, he stays down. In this scenario, I'd be more comfortable with an AK that will almost certainly drop a guy regardless of armor than an AR-15 that would have a tougher time against suspects who are decked out in full body armor. Of course, I'm not taking into account costs of importation/manufacture/standardization of the weapons and rounds.

i'd rather choose they have M-16 in their back instead of two...

Well, the main advantage of the AK-47 is obviously it's durability, you can do damn near anything to it, and it will will still fire.

That kind of reliability isn't needed for police. As the weapons will only be used for training, or when it's actually needed. And while it's not being used, it'll be held in a clean armory. Also the AR-15 needs only semi-regular cleaning, and it's just as reliable.

A disadvantage of the AK-47, is that it's not as accurate after the first shot, due to the stock 'bending down' as it does. The AR-15 has a stock in line with the firing mechanism and receiver, therefore the energy goes directly into the shooters shoulder and is absorbed instead of going off in some random direction (Down in the case of the AK) And allowing for muzzle-climb.

Now, just cause the AK has a larger caliber does not make it more destructive. The 5.56mm used by the AR is designed to 'tumble' after it hits it's target, usually flesh. This causes more damage than the 7.62mm which tends to go directly through the target, and causes far less damage. (Unless you nail a vital organ, in which case both will kill anyway)

Both calibers can come with armor-piercing rounds, which negates the difference between the ability to go through armor. (And at range, I don't know if the 7.62 can pierce high-quality Kevlar.)

Most likely the public wouldn't like having our police running around with AKs, as most of the public tends to consider that a symbol of terrorism (Or before that of Communism)

Like many others, I don't think the AK-47 and its variants are needed at all by the police force. It's practical application the field is not seen in law enforcement, like its durability, imperviousness to environment conditions, reliability, high-caliber bullets of 7.62, etc.

The AR-15, a variant of the M-16/M4 model, is more than enough to serve the public in form of protection. If we really needed firepower, that's when the SWAT and special forces are called in.