comparing glock 40 cal. handgun to m-16

Question
Sir,

I am a student at a college in Massachusetts. I know almost nothing about firearms. I am writing a paper in support of local and state police departments being equipped with surplus military weapons such as the m-16.(program 1033) While I know little about the weapons themselves I do know that we must provide our law enforcement with the tools they need to protect us in the event of a terrorist threat or active shooter situation. I would like to know the advantages of an m-16 would provide officers with that the standard issue glock handgun does not. ie)range, accuracy stopping power...... any info is greatly appreciated.

Answer
Brian,

I applaud you for the topic of your paper. Though perhaps beyond the scope of your monograph, I would encourage you to look at other states that have restrictive gun laws for their populous vis-a-vis those which recognize the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and the effects of both when the rule of law is compromised. The police are an important part of the equation, but only one part, and in something as disastrous as the kind of terrorist attack that would require the police to have military weapons, they will be stretched thin, and (as happened in Louisiana) some will simply resign on the spot. As the passengers on Flight 93 came to realize and demonstrated on 11 Sept 01, the only people who will ever make a difference in a critical situation are the people who are right there, right then. All the better if those people have the tools to fight with.

But to your question:

After the North Hollywood bank robbery and shootout on 28 Feb 97 in which the rank-and-file LAPD had only 9mm and .38 special pistols and 12ga shotguns, many PD's have determined to go to patrol carbines. The LAPD was finally able to subdue those shooters only after they entered a local gun store, apprised the owner of the situation, and the owner "loaned" them AR-15s (the demilitarized version of the M16 or shorter barreled M4).

The benefits of such a weapons for a civilian agency are that it is more accurate than a handgun or shotgun,, has greater ammunition capacity and faster reloads, and is both more powerful and has greater range than any handgun or shotgun.

It is important to understand that a handgun is a close-range reactive weapon. No knowledgeable person would bring a handgun if he knew he was going to a fight. On the other hand, the 5.56x45 mm NATO cartridge of the M16 or M4 (the difference between these guns is only that the M16 has a 20" barrel, and the M4 a .14.5" barrel) is ideal for urban or suburban environments. It has an effective range out to 300 yards. Because of the extremely fast muzzle velocity, projectiles tend to break up when they hit hard objects instead of "ricocheting." With regard to over-penetration, tests conducted by Bill Jeans (NTOA) and the Snohomish County Sheriff抯 Office in the late 1990s indicated that there is more over penetration from standard issue handguns; exits from ballistic gelatin simulating a fleshy medium penetrated secondary media only 20% of the distance of exists from handguns, indicating that the 5.56 would limiting collateral even compared to a handgun. The velocity of the 5.56 NATO round causes it to tumble and break-up in a fleshy medium, thereby delivering all its kinetic energy to the target and often not exiting at all.

Those who are opposed to the acquisition of these guns may do so on the basis that they are fully automatic weapons and thus would have no place in a civilian context. I would agree with that completely. Nothing would increase the chance of collateral damage, or diminish hit probability as much as would putting fully automatic weapons in the hands of the average patrolman. But this is an easy fix. Simply replacing the full auto trigger group with the AR-15 trigger group would render the firearm semi-automatic only.

A police agency acquiring these guns must be willing to dedicate the resources and time necessary to training with them. One of the greatest fallacies of our age is that equipment equals ability. Just because police officers have a particular gun does not mean that they know how to use it (and I can testify to that by personal training experience). It is also incumbent upon the police administration to allow these officers, once trained, to keep their patrol rifles or carbines with them. Handguns have a very short sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sight) with the result that a handgun can be mechanically zeroed at the factory and be good for any shooter over ordinary handgun engagement distances. Not so with a rifle. Where one places his cheek on the stock and a host of other factors make it so that I cannot sight in your rifle for you - you must sight in your own rifle. I have been involved with a PD the administration of which does not understand this, and keeps their patrol carbines in the armory; "the officers can come and get them if they need them." Not only is this incredibly shortsighted, since they may not have the time to come and get them, but if they just grab a rifle off the rack, there is little change they are going to be able to hit a target out beyond about 50 yards with a rifle that was zeroed by someone else.

If you research the history of police powers in the U.S. you will discover that the police are allowed to carry guns in the discharge of their duty because they are U.S. citizens, and U.S. citizens have the right to bear arms. I would therefore not be in favor of the police having any weapon as police officers that they could not own in their status as private citizens. I don't know what that means for MA, but for the rest of the country, it means they can have patrol carbines which I think is a good idea if they are converted to semi-auto fire only.

* Better range than handguns or shotguns
* Better accuracy than handguns or shotguns at longer ranges
* Higher magazine capacity than handguns and shotguns; faster reloads than shotguns
* Equal or less chance of overpenetration and collateral damage than handguns
* Greater kinetic energy delivered to the target means better likelihood of incapacitation (A 55 grain 5.56 projectile out of the AR travels at 3,000 fps, whereas a 180 grain projectile of out of a .40 Glock travels about 950 fps)

Good luck with your paper.