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.

Their duty-issue handgun is 9mm, so you would think they would keep the same caliber.

 easysauce wrote:
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.

I once was researching if a .45 would stop a bear. The answer turned out to be "It might bleed out eventually, but not before it kills you because you enraged it by shooting it with a .45".

No way a bear at full charge going to be even slowed by a .45 unless head shot, heart shot, spinal shot, heard a back claw shot but that was Louise Lamour book. Why is it that I am getting the impression that LEO tactical response units are getting their OIF/OEF version on.

So, going off on a related tangent: what's with all the hate for .40 S&W? It seems like a great round and is much loved by many law enforcement agencies.

I personally don't like it because it feels a little too snappy for me, but on paper it seems just about a perfect tradeoff between capacity vs stopping power, especially with a +P JHP.

 Jihadin wrote:
No way a bear at full charge going to be even slowed by a .45 unless head shot, heart shot, spinal shot, heard a back claw shot but that was Louise Lamour book. Why is it that I am getting the impression that LEO tactical response units are getting their OIF/OEF version on.

But what if these guys face a deadly multi bear assault? What if they team up with the moose? Ive seen a moose get shot 10+ times with a handgun caliber and not go down.

The only thing I can think of to reliably stop a multi bear/moose assault would be the M1 garand.

8 shots of 30-06 isnt going to let you down often if ever.

Best canadian invention ever.

I holler for my crew serve 240's and 249's to lay some righteous justice down on that multi assault and have everyone to keep an extra eye out for a gorilla wielding a metal bar

Maybe they should just buy some A-10s, that would take care of any bear problem I think.

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe they should just buy some A-10s, that would take care of any bear problem I think.

SIMPSONS DID IT

I only call on those when the Bears gather and ambush traffic on I5. Its always good to see Jihad screaming mangy dirty smelly bears coming off the hill to attack innocent old ladies who can't drive get perforated, diced, minced, shot, shred, rend, lanced, instantakill, wounds counters over total HP's and in double range of a vector striking A10

 d-usa wrote:
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?".

Looks like Border Patrol uses the UMP40.

Yep. Purchasing will have rules in place that make you go out to tender on this stuff, even though you know exactly what you want and who you want it from, so you write a stupidly specific list of requirements to make sure that the item you want exactly meets the criteria.

Happens with job vacancies as well, there's a person lined up, maybe they've even been acting in the role for a while, but you have to advertise the job so you end up writing a stupidly specific list of requirements, anything short of 'must have the initials JNT'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
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 it's because when efforts have been made to rationalise the number of departments it's been done badly (Homeland Security), not saving much money, any often only makes line of responsibility and control even more confused.

That isn't to say any future effort has to be done badly, just that past experience has various managers a good defence to protect their little empires.

 d-usa wrote:
Well, a big one would the the US Forest Service:

Uniformed Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs) enforce federal laws and regulations governing national forest lands and resources. LEOs also enforce some or all state laws on National Forest Lands. As part of that mission, LEOs carry firearms, defensive equipment, make arrests, execute search warrants, complete reports, and testify in court. They establish a regular and recurring presence on a vast amount of public lands, roads, and recreation sites. The primary focus of their jobs is the protection of natural resources, protection of Forest Service employees and the protection of visitors. To cover the vast and varied terrain under their jurisdiction, they use Ford Crown Victoria Police Interceptors, special service SUVs, horses, K-9 units, helicopters, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, and boats.

Special Agents are criminal investigators who plan and conduct investigations concerning possible violations of criminal and administrative provisions of the Forest Service and other statues under the United States Code. Special agents are normally plainclothes officers who carry concealed firearms, and other defensive equipment, make arrests, carry out complex criminal investigations, present cases for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys, and prepare investigative reports. All field agents are required to travel a great deal and usually maintain a case load of ten to fifteen ongoing criminal investigations at one time. Criminal investigators occasionally conduct internal and civil claim investigations.

Haven't any of you guys ever seen Lassie? Maybe it's before some of your times, I guess. it's a show about a lovable dog that gets into tons of adventures with the US Forestry Service Rangers.

Which one?There were a crap load of "Lassies" spanning quite a few generations

 Ouze wrote:
So, going off on a related tangent: what's with all the hate for .40 S&W? It seems like a great round and is much loved by many law enforcement agencies.

I personally don't like it because it feels a little too snappy for me, but on paper it seems just about a perfect tradeoff between capacity vs stopping power, especially with a +P JHP.

Oy vey, so Ouze was walking along and suddenly he fell into a great hole, the hole led to place of swirling winds and lightning. Ouze fell into, the Caliber Wars...

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

SMGs fire pistol caliber rounds that are not entirely effective at penetrating body armor and are designed for damaging tissue (hence the common calibers of 9mm & .45)
PDWs fire rounds that are designed to defeat body armor, such as the 5.7mm (P90) & 4.6mm rounds (MP7)

This image helps illustrate the differences

From left to right:
7.62 NATO
5.56 NATO
5.7 P90 round
9mm Parabellum round


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 streamdragon wrote:
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.)

I believe that the whole point of a PDW was to offer a firearm that was compact and could be issued to vehicle crews that could still defeat body armour. Most SMGs fire a round that is great against flesh but struggles with armour penetration.
The P90 was the second weapon I ever got to fire. Really nice too. Ambidextrous fire controls, spent brass ejects down and not to the side, optics took a little getting used to but it also has iron sights, and the recoil is very manageable. If I recall correctly from the FN promotional video the SS190 round (the 5.7x28 round the P90 fires) produces 40% less recoil than a 9mm round.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Their duty-issue handgun is 9mm, so you would think they would keep the same caliber.

That would make logistical sense. And we all know that is beyond the scope of most government departments


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
So, going off on a related tangent: what's with all the hate for .40 S&W? It seems like a great round and is much loved by many law enforcement agencies.

I personally don't like it because it feels a little too snappy for me, but on paper it seems just about a perfect tradeoff between capacity vs stopping power, especially with a +P JHP.

From the little research that I have done on it a lot of people don't like it because it is so snappy. It seems like a compromise round for those who cannot decide between more stopping power v more rounds and it doesn't do either particularly well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
8 shots of 30-06 isnt going to let you down often if ever.

The USDA might be better served with a short barreled FAL instead of a 10mm SMG


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Oy vey, so Ouze was walking along and suddenly he fell into a great hole, the hole led to place of swirling winds and lightning. Ouze fell into, the Caliber Wars...

So the great debate starts....

Looks like its for the OIG and not the Forestry Service:

USDA responded to POLITICO by explaining that there are more than 100 agents employed by the law enforcement division of the department’s Office of the Inspector General who carry such weapons because they are involved in the investigation of criminal activities, including fraud, theft of government property, bribery, extortion, smuggling and assaults on employees. From fiscal 2012 through March 2014, OIG investigations pertaining to USDA operations have netted more than 2,000 indictments, 1,350 convictions and over $460 million in monetary results, the OIG told POLITICO in a subsequent email.

USDA spokeswoman Courtney Rowe says the guns are needed by the more than 100 agents employed by the law-enforcement division of the department’s Office of the Inspector General. They’ve carried machine guns for 20 years, she notes. USDA OIG officers “are placed in very dangerous law enforcement situations,” another USDA official told POLITICO. “They make arrests, they serve subpoenas and they engage in undercover operations.”

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Oy vey, so Ouze was walking along and suddenly he fell into a great hole, the hole led to place of swirling winds and lightning. Ouze fell into, the Caliber Wars...

So the great debate starts....

As a .45 carrier, I found this most amusing.

Colion Noir is great, I've been a sub to his channel for awhile now. His 9mm vid in the same vein is great.

 Gentleman_Jellyfish wrote:
All I need is my local PUD to have their own tactical team and I can finally start leaving my door unlocked with all this safety floating around!

Exalted.