ARmy Rumour SErvice

**The_Seagull** · 01-05-2012, 07:55

Originally Posted by Shortty

Hence why I said, correct me if I'm wrong. But you haven't bothered, you've just gobbed off. Nice one. I'm not in the habit of proving myself to anyone, so think what you fucking like. It was the predecessor to the SASC that were initially brought in to provide training to CO19. As for now, in the Met, I don't know exactly how it works, and that's why I opened it up for someone to correct me. A bit of research shows that I've misunderstood the role of SFO, and in fact that should be replaced with CO19 training team. My understanding is SF provide training to both the training team and SFO's.. anyone know any more? My current role has fuck all to do with firearms, and is no where near London, so I'm just speculating.

P.S. I certainly do not regard myself as "old bill" as in my force this is a term only used by cops who are too fat and unfit to run 800m, too stupid to put a file together, counting down the days till they can retire and generally finding any excuse to not work nights/leave the station/deal with any work, or do anything in return for top PC level wage and numerous old boy benefits they draw each month. They also tend to gob off about how much experience they have in the job, and then fail to write a basic ID statement, or understand basic law. Examples are going to be trying to crime ABH with intent, and writing in an arrest statement that you only nicked them because you couldn't 136 them. Section PC's have a shelf life of about 8 years, after that they either move on, or up, or just become stagnant and start whining about length of service being more important than competence, knowledge or rank..

You're in for a long career with that massive chip on your shoulder fella. I imagine (if you are a police constable) you're very popular in your nick, strutting around telling everyone they're shit (HPDS perchance?) and Winsor's a good idea.

Either that or you're still a "student officer" or whatever they call them and you've had so much smoke blown up your arse by the trainers you actually believe the bollocks they tell you about being better qualified than your more experienced counterparts.

You're also gobbling off about stuff you clearly guess at or read in the Mail.

Now, get the kettle on.

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

**The_Seagull** · 01-05-2012, 08:18

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

Not sure how Glocks, MP5s and 'sniper' rifles used at distances of 50 yards (there's ten grand well spent) are 'safer' than some Remington 870s, revolvers and bolt-action rifles. In fact, I suspect that the opposite is the case.

You mean revolvers that aren't drop safe? (unlike a glock)

You mean Remington 870's that a police officer would need to use solid slugs for? They'd devastate a person hit by such a round. Which, bearing in mind the furor over the met switching to Hollow Point ammunition would probably have the daily mail readership vomit in their tea.

Yeah, much safer.

By your reckoning the army should go back to Lee Enfield 303's, webleys, and Bren Guns.

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

**vvaannmmaann** · 01-05-2012, 08:38

You anti the 7.62 then?

**The_Seagull** · 01-05-2012, 08:41

Originally Posted by vvaannmmaann

You anti the 7.62 then?

I've been knocking around this site far too long to be anti SLR or anything 7.62 for that matter.

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 01-05-2012, 08:51

Originally Posted by The_Seagull

You mean revolvers that aren't drop safe? (unlike a glock)

You mean Remington 870's that a police officer would need to use solid slugs for? They'd devastate a person hit by such a round.

You leave one chamber of the revolver's cylinder empty, ideally the one under the hammer. And as for devastating a person, I thought that was sort of the point of shooting them?

**The_Seagull** · 01-05-2012, 08:56

Originally Posted by Pigshyt_Freeman

You leave one chamber of the revolver's cylinder empty, ideally the one under the hammer. And as for devastating a person, I thought that was sort of the point of shooting them?

So, with the revolver, you can't get your 1st round off if confronted with an immediate threat.

With the shotgun you now are pretty much shooting to kill as opposed to shooting to stop the threat. (besides, plod in the UK aren't allowed to shoot people on purpose with shotguns).

You've not really thought this out have you?

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

**"Maxwell" House** · 01-05-2012, 09:03

Originally Posted by The_Seagull

So, with the revolver, you can't get your 1st round off if confronted with an immediate threat.

With the shotgun you now are pretty much shooting to kill as opposed to shooting to stop the threat. (besides, plod in the UK aren't allowed to shoot people on purpose with shotguns).

You've not really thought this out have you?

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

Why else would you shoot them?

**The_Seagull** · 01-05-2012, 09:09

Originally Posted by "Maxwell" House

Why else would you shoot them?

That sentence basically sums up the misconceptions, false information, or ignorance in relation to the use of police firearms.

Police firearms are used to stop the threat. Sometimes people die as a result but the vast majority survive. The idea isn't to kill the subject, but to stop whatever threat they are presenting.

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

**Pigshyt_Freeman** · 01-05-2012, 09:21

Originally Posted by The_Seagull

So, with the revolver, you can't get your 1st round off if confronted with an immediate threat.

Yes. You're obvuosly not familiar with the mechanism of revolvers, but the cylinder revolves as the hammer is drawn back, either by thumb or through double-action operation of the trigger. Therefore, if you have one empty under the pin, you're safe from drop discharge and still have five ready to go. Has any mainland UK police officer ever had to discharge more than 5 rounds in one engagement?

**donmac** · 01-05-2012, 09:28

Originally Posted by The_Seagull

That sentence basically sums up the misconceptions, false information, or ignorance in relation to the use of police firearms.

Police firearms are used to stop the threat. Sometimes people die as a result but the vast majority survive. The idea isn't to kill the subject, but to stop whatever threat they are presenting.

Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE

So how are they trained to shoot to not kill? Shoot the weapon out of their hand a la Lone Ranger? Aim for an arm or a leg; the easy targets? Perhaps the reason the vast majority survive is because the Police are crap shots.
A new concept - Shoot To Piss Off.