Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im confused. What if they run into a situation where this might be needed? What if there ends up being a crazy beef salesmen on a farm?

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not the BLM or the Park Service? Jeeze how many Ranger RIcks are out there?

Oh wow it is part of the USDA. Thats just...weird.

But why do they need tacticool submachine guns again?

Because they need to shoot poachers in the face.

I don't know if that's what they actually do, but it's what they need to do, because frell poachers.

If you're going to shoot poachers in the face you want a carbine or rifle. Submachine gun is pistol range. The poacher is going to shoot you first.
I've seen Forestry guys in Alaska with shotguns because of bears. I can understand that. Submachine guns are only good at short range, against people. In a rural / wild environment its strictly WTF?

The P-90 has an effective range of just under 6,000 feet. Depending on terrain, that is more than enough. Even the MP5 lists 150m as an effective range, which is well over "pistol range". If it's good enough for the Rangers... (I'm aware that's a civilian site.)

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not the BLM or the Park Service? Jeeze how many Ranger RIcks are out there?

Oh wow it is part of the USDA. Thats just...weird.

But why do they need tacticool submachine guns again?

Because they need to shoot poachers in the face.

I don't know if that's what they actually do, but it's what they need to do, because frell poachers.

If you're going to shoot poachers in the face you want a carbine or rifle. Submachine gun is pistol range. The poacher is going to shoot you first.
I've seen Forestry guys in Alaska with shotguns because of bears. I can understand that. Submachine guns are only good at short range, against people. In a rural / wild environment its strictly WTF?

In NJ for awhile our Fish and Game officers were armed with a Glock that fired 357 SIG ammo. It was used on several occasions to kill black bears in situations where a rifle or a shotgun either wasn't at hand or wouldn't work.

 streamdragon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carbine would be better. Shotgun would be better. Both have a decent chance of stopping bears and mountain lions. I wouldn't trust a pistol caliber submachine gun for that.

In actuality does anyone: 1) make submachine guns any more

MP5s are still used by DC law enforcement, and the P-90 is used by over 200 LE groups according to google.

Looks like the MP5 is one of the few models that is actually chambered for .40 as well. Maybe somebody in DC just leaned over to the other desk and asked "what gun are you guys using?"/

I'm afraid you overestimate inter-agency communication in the federal government.:(

Okay.

Somebody in DC went to take a crap and walked into the bathroom. One of the fancy federal police guys was also taking a crap and left his MP5 hanging unsecured on the coat rack because he needed both hands to play Angry Birds on the crapper. The USDA guy saw the guns, played around with it a bit and decided "neat, I want one".

More likely scenario?

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carbine would be better. Shotgun would be better. Both have a decent chance of stopping bears and mountain lions. I wouldn't trust a pistol caliber submachine gun for that.

In actuality does anyone: 1) make submachine guns any more; 2) make one in .40 S&W? I'd bet bucks this is a bid tailored for a specified contractor.

Generally I'd agree with you, but what I get out of reading their RFP is that their looking for something with minimal recoil which counts out a carbine or a shotgun.

My additional guess is that their looking for something that a large range of people and use and be quickly and cheaply trained with.

H&K is probably the most well known... However there RFP could also be interperated as them looking for a lightweight, semi-automatic, long gun that shoots a handgun round.

5.56s don't kick for squat. Hance why them going to AR-15s defintiely makes sense. This is the opposite of that.

Either the procurer is incompetent, or this is for a completeley different purpose.

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carbine would be better. Shotgun would be better. Both have a decent chance of stopping bears and mountain lions. I wouldn't trust a pistol caliber submachine gun for that.

In actuality does anyone: 1) make submachine guns any more

MP5s are still used by DC law enforcement, and the P-90 is used by over 200 LE groups according to google.

Thats my point. You said DC law enforcement. Thats urban designed for near/in house shooting.

That was an answer to "In actuality does anyone make submachine guns any more?". The answer is: Yes, people still make and regularly use submachine guns.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So, we advocate arming citizens, but not arming officers?

Well, first we advocated not arming cow inspectors.

Now that we realize that there is an actual real law enforcement agency stuck inside the USDA we are not advocating against arming officers. We are advocating arming officers appropriately.

So the question is "why this weapon?" and that is what we are trying to figure out.

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not the BLM or the Park Service? Jeeze how many Ranger RIcks are out there?

Oh wow it is part of the USDA. Thats just...weird.

But why do they need tacticool submachine guns again?

Because they need to shoot poachers in the face.

I don't know if that's what they actually do, but it's what they need to do, because frell poachers.

If you're going to shoot poachers in the face you want a carbine or rifle. Submachine gun is pistol range. The poacher is going to shoot you first.
I've seen Forestry guys in Alaska with shotguns because of bears. I can understand that. Submachine guns are only good at short range, against people. In a rural / wild environment its strictly WTF?

The P-90 has an effective range of just under 6,000 feet. Depending on terrain, that is more than enough. Even the MP5 lists 150m as an effective range, which is well over "pistol range". If it's good enough for the Rangers... (I'm aware that's a civilian site.)

Wow. ok, no. Ranger RIck is not going to be able to shoot an MP 5 150 meter. Besides Iranger Rick could use an AR that weighs the same and shout 300 meters, with something that could stop a bear...

Is there another group in USDA?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carbine would be better. Shotgun would be better. Both have a decent chance of stopping bears and mountain lions. I wouldn't trust a pistol caliber submachine gun for that.

In actuality does anyone: 1) make submachine guns any more; 2) make one in .40 S&W? I'd bet bucks this is a bid tailored for a specified contractor.

Generally I'd agree with you, but what I get out of reading their RFP is that their looking for something with minimal recoil which counts out a carbine or a shotgun.

My additional guess is that their looking for something that a large range of people and use and be quickly and cheaply trained with.

H&K is probably the most well known... However there RFP could also be interperated as them looking for a lightweight, semi-automatic, long gun that shoots a handgun round.

5.56s don't kick for squat. Hance why them going to AR-15s defintiely makes sense. This is the opposite of that.

Either the procurer is incompetent, or this is for a completeley different purpose.

5.56 Isn't really a good round to actually kill something with... 5.56 just tends to poke holes in things especially when fired out of a carbine because the round doesn't spend enough time in the barrel to reach a velocity where it fragments on impact.

 Frazzled wrote:

Is there another group in USDA?

There are quite a few agencies within the USDA, but from a quick look at Wikipedia I don't really see anything that stands out as including another law enforcement agency.

The Forest Service is probably the most likely agency for this.

I do wonder if the movement of drug activities to federal land is a motivation though.

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Thats not the BLM or the Park Service? Jeeze how many Ranger RIcks are out there?

Oh wow it is part of the USDA. Thats just...weird.

But why do they need tacticool submachine guns again?

Because they need to shoot poachers in the face.

I don't know if that's what they actually do, but it's what they need to do, because frell poachers.

If you're going to shoot poachers in the face you want a carbine or rifle. Submachine gun is pistol range. The poacher is going to shoot you first.
I've seen Forestry guys in Alaska with shotguns because of bears. I can understand that. Submachine guns are only good at short range, against people. In a rural / wild environment its strictly WTF?

The P-90 has an effective range of just under 6,000 feet. Depending on terrain, that is more than enough. Even the MP5 lists 150m as an effective range, which is well over "pistol range". If it's good enough for the Rangers... (I'm aware that's a civilian site.)

Wow. ok, no. Ranger RIck is not going to be able to shoot an MP 5 150 meter. Besides Iranger Rick could use an AR that weighs the same and shout 300 meters, with something that could stop a bear...

Is there another group in USDA?

Know how I know you didn't click the link? It's for Army Rangers, not Forest Rangers. And the 150m effective range is from H&K who make the MP5. The site I linked noted that with practice you can actually exceed the effective range.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the AR would be a better purchase. I am saying that the choice of weapon could still be appropriate and effective. The MP5 comes in a 5.56 chamber, for instance. Granted, that is somewhat moot given that the request was for a .40 round, but to suggest that a submachine gun could never be used in the same environments for the same purposes that an AR could be is a little disingenuous.

I saw you said Army Rangers. FOREST RANGERS on the other hand, are not going to be able to do anything of the sort.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Is there another group in USDA?

There are quite a few agencies within the USDA, but from a quick look at Wikipedia I don't really see anything that stands out as including another law enforcement agency.

The Forest Service is probably the most likely agency for this.

I do wonder if the movement of drug activities to federal land is a motivation though.

It might actually have more to do with where the funding for this purchase came from... If it's for an actual law enforcement agency it could be Homeland Defense money and that type of money comes with some pretty odd stipulations on what you can buy with it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Is there another group in USDA?

There are quite a few agencies within the USDA, but from a quick look at Wikipedia I don't really see anything that stands out as including another law enforcement agency.

The Forest Service is probably the most likely agency for this.

I do wonder if the movement of drug activities to federal land is a motivation though.

Could be. Again, I'd go with the AR. There's no downside to it.

 Frazzled wrote:
I saw you said Army Rangers. FOREST RANGERS on the other hand, are not going to be able to do anything of the sort.

Again, 150m is the effective range of the weapon. Decent shot or not (and I'd wager that the Forest Rangers aren't terrible shots), the round will still be effective at 150m. The Army Rangers could make it effective to a longer distance, but anyone who can shoot could still use it to 150m.

Besides, if a Forest Ranger can't handle a scoped SMG they probably also can't handle a scoped AR. Realistically, however, they can handle either.

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Is there another group in USDA?

There are quite a few agencies within the USDA, but from a quick look at Wikipedia I don't really see anything that stands out as including another law enforcement agency.

The Forest Service is probably the most likely agency for this.

I do wonder if the movement of drug activities to federal land is a motivation though.

It might actually have more to do with where the funding for this purchase came from... If it's for an actual law enforcement agency it could be Homeland Defense money and that type of money comes with some pretty odd stipulations on what you can buy with it.

I didn't consider that.

 d-usa wrote:

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Is there another group in USDA?

There are quite a few agencies within the USDA, but from a quick look at Wikipedia I don't really see anything that stands out as including another law enforcement agency.

The Forest Service is probably the most likely agency for this.

I do wonder if the movement of drug activities to federal land is a motivation though.

It might actually have more to do with where the funding for this purchase came from... If it's for an actual law enforcement agency it could be Homeland Defense money and that type of money comes with some pretty odd stipulations on what you can buy with it.

I didn't consider that.

Thats a good point.

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Catyrpelius wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Is there another group in USDA?

There are quite a few agencies within the USDA, but from a quick look at Wikipedia I don't really see anything that stands out as including another law enforcement agency.

The Forest Service is probably the most likely agency for this.

I do wonder if the movement of drug activities to federal land is a motivation though.

It might actually have more to do with where the funding for this purchase came from... If it's for an actual law enforcement agency it could be Homeland Defense money and that type of money comes with some pretty odd stipulations on what you can buy with it.

I didn't consider that.

Thats a good point.

I only have good points...

Some of the stipulations put on Homeland Defense dollars are pretty bizare and well worth a read if you ever have that much free time.

 Frazzled wrote:
In actuality does anyone: 1) make submachine guns any more; 2) make one in .40 S&W? I'd bet bucks this is a bid tailored for a specified contractor.

SMGs are still made, and used quite frequently. But I suspect that you are correct in relation to a tailored bid. Very few SMGs are chambered in .40S&W. It used to be the FBI only that had an MP5 varient chambered in this caliber. The only companies that I think offer .40cal SMGs are Sig, the Kriss Vector, and the older H&K MP5/10


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:
Mind you, I'm not saying that the AR would be a better purchase. I am saying that the choice of weapon could still be appropriate and effective. The MP5 comes in a 5.56 chamber, for instance. Granted, that is somewhat moot given that the request was for a .40 round, but to suggest that a submachine gun could never be used in the same environments for the same purposes that an AR could be is a little disingenuous.

The MP5 was designed to be chambered primarily in 9mm. There is a 5.56mm rifle the G53. They look similar in design because they were modeled after the G3


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:
MP5s are still used by DC law enforcement, and the P-90 is used by over 200 LE groups according to google.

The P90 is a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), not a SMG.

The P90 is a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), not a SMG

The difference between the two is kind of red apples and green apples.

EDIT: There are also quite a few US Enforcement Agencies using .40 ammo already which is probably why the USDA is asking for that kind of weapon. I'm pretty sure NOAA agents carry .40 side arms. The reason they're asking for these weapons is probably because the cartels have made a habit of growing and cooking on US parks. They're big places and easy to hide in and guarded. When a park ranger just stumbles into one the risk to his life is coming from military grade assault weapons.

And again, instead of a stupid question like "should park rangers have guns" maybe we should ask the smarter question; Why do we have a half dozen different agencies with law enforcement mandates for federal land. BLM and the Forest Service basically do the same thing. Why are they separate agencies?

Again, 150m is the effective range of the weapon. Decent shot or not (and I'd wager that the Forest Rangers aren't terrible shots), the round will still be effective at 150m. The Army Rangers could make it effective to a longer distance, but anyone who can shoot could still use it to 150m.

If we're talking M4 carbine here. Its effective range for point target is 500m and under. Area target 600m

Rear sight aperture is set at 300m

P90 is 200m effective range with 1800m reach.

USDA dream weapon sounds like something from Stargate SG1

M4 is combat proven and reliable.


USDA is a financial distribution center for DHS

well to be fair, who doesnt want one of those?

but in a real caliber, not the .40 SW... thats just silly...


wrong tool for the job, even a .45 is not going to reliably take down large game, shotguns with slugs and or buckshot, or a good 30-06 is what they need.

definatly sounds like a case of "ooooo shiney, I want!" or some silly bureaucratic restriction on what they can buy maybe?

 LordofHats wrote:

The P90 is a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), not a SMG

The difference between the two is kind of red apples and green apples.

EDIT: There are also quite a few US Enforcement Agencies using .40 ammo already which is probably why the USDA is asking for that kind of weapon. I'm pretty sure NOAA agents carry .40 side arms. The reason they're asking for these weapons is probably because the cartels have made a habit of growing and cooking on US parks. They're big places and easy to hide in and guarded. When a park ranger just stumbles into one the risk to his life is coming from military grade assault weapons.

And again, instead of a stupid question like "should park rangers have guns" maybe we should ask the smarter question; Why do we have a half dozen different agencies with law enforcement mandates for federal land. BLM and the Forest Service basically do the same thing. Why are they separate agencies?

Didn't I already ask that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Carbine would be better. Shotgun would be better. Both have a decent chance of stopping bears and mountain lions. I wouldn't trust a pistol caliber submachine gun for that.

In actuality does anyone: 1) make submachine guns any more

MP5s are still used by DC law enforcement, and the P-90 is used by over 200 LE groups according to google.

Looks like the MP5 is one of the few models that is actually chambered for .40 as well. Maybe somebody in DC just leaned over to the other desk and asked "what gun are you guys using?"/

I'm afraid you overestimate inter-agency communication in the federal government.:(

Okay.

Somebody in DC went to take a crap and walked into the bathroom. One of the fancy federal police guys was also taking a crap and left his MP5 hanging unsecured on the coat rack because he needed both hands to play Angry Birds on the crapper. The USDA guy saw the guns, played around with it a bit and decided "neat, I want one".

More likely scenario?

Extremely more likely.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
well to be fair, who doesnt want one of those?

but in a real caliber, not the .40 SW... thats just silly...


wrong tool for the job, even a .45 is not going to reliably take down large game, shotguns with slugs and or buckshot, or a good 30-06 is what they need.

definatly sounds like a case of "ooooo shiney, I want!" or some silly bureaucratic restriction on what they can buy maybe?

Again, agreed on all points.

Didn't I already ask that?

I wasn't addressing the comment to any post in particular. The thread certainly doesn't seem to be asking that question.

Extremely more likely.

Type in 'Forest ranger shoot out' into google and go through the articles (you might have to go through a few pages of blog sites). Just because you haven't heard about it doesn't mean its not happening. The Cartels are encroaching on US forests and there have been several gun battles. In the midwest there's also an ongoing problem with illegal logging operations.

Jihadin wrote:If we're talking M4 carbine here. Its effective range for point target is 500m and under. Area target 600m
Rear sight aperture is set at 300m
P90 is 200m effective range with 1800m reach.
USDA dream weapon sounds like something from Stargate SG1
M4 is combat proven and reliable.

Er, no, MP5. I may have left out a letter?
And don't the use the P-90 on SG-1? Well, in addition to staff weapons I mean.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:The MP5 was designed to be chambered primarily in 9mm. There is a 5.56mm rifle the G53. They look similar in design because they were modeled after the G3


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:
MP5s are still used by DC law enforcement, and the P-90 is used by over 200 LE groups according to google.

The P90 is a Personal Defense Weapon (PDW), not a SMG.

I'm a decent fan of the MP5, so looks like it's time to delve into the G3. Not that I'd buy any, because it's not worth the hassle in MD, but still excellent stuff.

As to PDW vs SMG, I admit fully I didn't think there was a real difference.

I actually wiki'd it to see if there was:

A personal defense weapon (PDW) is a compact semi-automatic or fully automatic firearm similar in most respects to a submachine gun, but firing a (often proprietary) rifle round, giving a PDW better range, accuracy and armor-penetrating capability than submachine guns, which fire pistol-caliber cartridges. The class of weapon as it exists today evolved as a hybrid between a submachine gun and a carbine, retaining the compact size and ammunition capacity of the former while adding the power, accuracy and penetration of the latter.

So a PDW is basically an SMG++. P-90s for everyone! (Apparently the US has 18 different federal or state law enforcement groups using the P90 already.)

LordofHats wrote:
EDIT: There are also quite a few US Enforcement Agencies using .40 ammo already which is probably why the USDA is asking for that kind of weapon. I'm pretty sure NOAA agents carry .40 side arms. The reason they're asking for these weapons is probably because the cartels have made a habit of growing and cooking on US parks. They're big places and easy to hide in and guarded. When a park ranger just stumbles into one the risk to his life is coming from military grade assault weapons.

And again, instead of a stupid question like "should park rangers have guns" maybe we should ask the smarter question; Why do we have a half dozen different agencies with law enforcement mandates for federal land. BLM and the Forest Service basically do the same thing. Why are they separate agencies?

I think the difference is that BLM regulates public used lands, whereas Forest/Park Service regulate public unused lands. "Used", not as in, receives people, but as in "has commercial applications". BLM handles mining rights on federal lands, for instance. The Park Service operates camp grounds and the like, but nothing that gets leased out to private groups. In the end, though, both are under the Department of the Interior. It's more like having Homicide/Gang/Drug/Vice divisions of a police department, in that regard.

 Ahtman wrote:
Cows need to be kept in check.

I for one welcome our new Bovine overlords.

I think the difference is that BLM regulates public used lands, whereas Forest/Park Service regulate public unused lands. "Used", not as in, receives people, but as in "has commercial applications". BLM handles mining rights on federal lands, for instance. The Park Service operates camp grounds and the like, but nothing that gets leased out to private groups. In the end, though, both are under the Department of the Interior. It's more like having Homicide/Gang/Drug/Vice divisions of a police department, in that regard.

I see the difference between the two, but I am baffled why we need both and why the Forest Service is in the Department of Agriculture. It seems more immediately prudent for the the Forest Service (sorry, I called it the Park service by mistake) to be a subsidy of BLM. Rather I'm not sure why the Forest and Park services shouldn't be fused into a single agency.

 Frazzled wrote:
What criminal statutes does the ISDA enforce again? How many no knock raids are they intending. Are the cartels getting into the lucrative corn products market?

They got pissed that the BLM were ignoring regulations when they took unpapered cattle to auction. Inter department war on the horizon! l

They use M4, 9mm SMG, P90, SAW, M240, 50cal as heavy crew serve gauss weapons, 9mm Baretta, and staff weapons

Just gave me excuse Steam to rewatch SG1

 Frazzled wrote:

I never knew milk cows were so dangerous.

Haven't you ever heard of Mad Cow Disease?

Anyway, regarding the .40 ammo, maybe they just have access to a huge stockpile of it and are looking for a way to make use of it?