Talk:List of police firearms in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Carbines or not?

I have reverted PMJ's good faith edit on this as his/her revision introduced factually incorrect information. The term Semi-automatic carbine is used in the UK Police (and other) contexts to differentiate the their Semi-Auto only versions of what are normally automatic fire capable sub-machine guns (most typically but not exclusively) the MP5 or occasionally short barrelled assault weapons (eg G36k).

The term “"Semi-Automatic Carbine" emphatically does not encompass police Pistols or Marksman’s (Sniper) rifles, let alone the more exotic weaponry used by such as the CNC (eg 20mm Naval Cannon and GPMG) and therefore it is wrong to baldly state that “Firearms that are used by the British Police are designated "Semi-Automatic Carbines".

I would be grateful if this was not reverted again unless there is good, citeable evidence to contradict the points above.UtriqueP (talk) 10:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Your right, but most small arms, such as MP5, G36, excluding Gimpy and long sniper arms, are semi auto. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I know a carbine, strictly speaking, would not be an MP5. But because British Police small arms, excluding the above, are designated as "Semi-auto carbines" because they are semi-auto, and a "semi-auto machinegun" is silly, because obviously not being automatic, this defeats the object of a "machine gun", thanks. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am male, just to clear up any future confusion :). Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry guys but the G36 in all it's iterations is an assault rifle irrespective of the length and fire mode. Please refer to wikipedia's own article and the HK site which describes the HKG36 as such. Twobells (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to the contentious issue over this I've edited the article to a more neutral standpoint and removed spurious information such as the glock 17 being a semi automatic pistol and so forth and corrected the definition of the HK MP7 PDW. Pleasetry (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You didn't make it "more neutral," you have made it more ambiguous. Why do you have such an issue with the weapons in use by UK police being clearly and unambiguously described - as they are - as "semi-automatic," particularly the carbines? There is also a massive contractiction in you demanding with we not refer to the LMT Defender as a "semi-automatic carbine," yet linked it to AR-15, which clearly states the weapon is semi-automatic only, and "carbine" is used to describe some varients on the page.

Your removal of "semi-automatic pistol" on the grounds of "redundant information as pistols are generally semi auto" is very disingenuous. Leaving simply the names of the firearms is profoundly ambiguous, since many if not most readers will have no idea what type of weapons they are without clicking on the links. "Semi-automatic" is very much not "redundant," since they need to be differentiated from the revolvers previously used, and which are still used by many police forces/officers around the world.

Your formatting is also very deficient, with words running into each other, mixed capitalisation, etc. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Aren't revolvers also semi automatic. You might as well add high capacity into the wording too but if they were as ignorant as you say they wouldn't have a clue in the first place. They might also be confused when clicking on the LMT defender link only to find themselves on an AR-15 article.

There is disagreement on exactly what is a carbine is it could mean any sort of short rifle so as these are assault rifles or sub machine guns that have their selectors stuck in single shot it makes more sense to call them that.Pleasetry (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, revolvers - barring a few exotic exceptions - are not semi-automatic, as they rely on the manual action of the user to put a new round into the firing position.

"Carbine" is a broad category, but since that how the UK police refer to the ones they use as such, there's no disagreement as you claim. It's also completely false to claim the weapons in question, "have their selectors stuck to single shot." The MP5s have a semi-automatic trigger group fitted, that would need complete replacement or destructive modification to make fully-automatic; as the AR-15 page states apropos the BTP's LMT Defenders:

"Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable."

UK police weapons are incapable of fully-automatic fire, so by definition cannot be described as "submachine guns" or "assualt rifles." Why should we pander to the ignorance of the scare-mongering media? Nick Cooper (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

To convert to full auto is a different issue,which I presume you're also mistaken on, but the fact remains that the police weapons aside from the AR-15,which is an assault rifle derivative, are modified assault rifles sub machine guns.If people read the label then they know what kind of gun to expect. That's excluding the unknown guns that pop up now and again.

As for revolvers it's the same difference you pull the trigger and it fires a new bullet perhaps you could list the magazine capacity instead which would indicate it's not a revolver and add information in the same space. Pleasetry (talk) 10:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who has implying that UK police firearms can be easily converted to fully-automatic; I am saying that it is nowhere as simple as your comments have suggested (i.e. "selectors stuck to single shot..."). The AR-15 may well be a derivitive of an assault rifle, and the MP5 of a submachine gun, but they are not assualt rifles or submachine guns in themselves. We cannot call the semi-automatic carbines "assualt rifles" or "submachine gun" because - more than anything else, and over and abovbe cosmetic appearances - most people reading those terms would actually think it means fully automatic weapons, which they obviously aren't.

I am somewhat stunned that you are so strenuously labouring over a accurate description of firearms, yet you seem woefully ignorant on such matters, as demonstarted by your confusion over the very clear distinction between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

All the more reason to label them as assault rifles. If you think people might get a glock confused with a cowboy pistol, they might think a carbine was an old lever action rifle.

"most people reading those terms would actually think it means fully automatic weapons, which they obviously aren't." Well I imagine they would be able to read semi automatic for those guns that are. It was you who brought up the issue of full auto and converting them to it. Pleasetry (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You are again showing your ignorance if you think - as it seems - that "revolver" equates with "cowboy gun". Modern revolvers are still manufactured, and still in use in many police forces around the world. They are not some archaic relic of a bygone age. Likewise, "carbine" is still very much a current term for modern firearms, and as is such far more accurate in this context.

No, you implied conversion was easy first by your ludicrous claim on 6 February that the firearms used by UK police merely, "have their selectors stuck in single shot..." Nick Cooper (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shoot to Kill/Shoot to Incapacitate

It says that it's shoot to Incapacitate. I haven't got any way of verifying that this is the current standing order, but at least until very recently this was certainly not the case. The reasoning is (was) that it does not make tactical sense to allow someone who is enough of a threat that they warrant shooting a chance to continue acting, and it further endangers the lives of any hostages or officers in the area as an injured suspect is more dangerous than before they were injured as they become more desperate. If they attempt to incapacitate a suspect they deploy different weapons.

I have never once been told by a police officer that they shoot to injure, but they have gone on record on more than one occassion as saying that shooting to injure is a myth where surviving an injury they recieve is purely a function of good fortune (and speedy medical attention) on their part. These tend to get rolled out after receiving criticism for shooting a suspect dead in a standoff. It stands to reason that the accuracy of the article is questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nzrouillard (talk • contribs) 01:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not according to ACPO. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

When opening fire, the only aim is to end the threat to life. Whether that means a headshot or shooting the arm that holds the gun is down to the individual officer and the individual situation. ninety:one 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Does this apply to Prison guards also? What's the policy regarding the circumstances under which lethal force may be used against escaping prisoners, or during a riot? For the life of me I can't seem to wrap my mind around the thinking that goes into policy making when it comes to firearms and the authorities in Britain. User 070 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Prison officers would be able to use firearms under the same exemption as police constables, but would never do so. For the legality of the use of firearms, see Template:Police use of firearms in the United Kingdom. Killing an escaping prisoner would not be 'reasonable force', unless possibly that prisoner was armed and threatening to shoot someone. ninety:one 16:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Would the actions of the officer be judged differently if one shot simply wounded the escaping prisoner rather than killing them? What powers do prison officers have to prevent prisoners from escaping? It seems rather strange to me that a prison guard will keep his gun idle while a prisoner is escaping, I mean what's the point of being armed then. User 070 (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Prison officers of Her Majesty's Prison Service do not carry firearms. I think Ninetyone was just giving an example, so you could understand the difference. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 17:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should've made a distinction between "Prison officer" as opposed to prison guard. I don't live in Britain, but I think it would be fair to assume(and would be very surprised if I'm wrong) that there are atleast some personnel authorised to use and issued firearms, guarding prisoners. Are you telling me there aren't any armed personnel located at the prison site? If prisoners are rioting or trying to organize an escape the "real police" has to be called? User 070 (talk) 18:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In England, Prison Officers are prison guards. Prison officers are not authorised nor trained in the use of firearms, I'm afraid you are wrong. If prisoners are rioting or trying to escape, with the former the Prison Service has it's own public order teams which deal with that, but in the case of rioting the police would be called. With the latter, that is what prison officers are trained to deal with, no need to resort to the use of firearms. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs)☺ 14:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you're failing to understand the point of my question. Whether it be the police or members of Her Majesty's Prison Service, are they not armed personnel controlling access onto and out of the prison grounds? I am surprised to learn that prison officers aren't issued any firearms whatsoever, but logically I'm assuming that this function is performed by the police then who would be located at the prison and would not have to be called from a station somewhere within the community. Or do I have it completely wrong, and no one at the prison has any guns? It makes little sense if any at all, that armed officers guard prisoners when transporting them to and from jail, but no one is armed at the prison itself to prevent them from escaping. Or am I too quick to jump to conclusions again in assuming that armed officers guard convicts on their way to prison? Surely in this post 9/11 7/7 era officers that transport prisoners are armed, arent they? User 070 (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why would we have armed personnel on a standard basis? We aren't stupid enough to let people have guns in the UK ;). A small number of prisoner escorts are conducted by armed officers, where there is specific intelligence that a risk is posed to the escort and that risk involves the use of firearms. An equally small number of Category A Prisons have static armed protection. ninety:one 18:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Only very high-risk prisoners (terrorists, some armed robbers, etc.) would receive an armed police escort during the court process and - if convicted - subsequent transportation to a Category A (maximum security) prison, but there would generally be no routine armed presence (either police or prison staff) at the latter facility once they were incarcerated. This practice pre-dates 9/11 & 7/7, but was obviously in place during the years the IRA was most active. Escapes from Category A prisons are exceptionally rare, even in the absence of armed guards. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand that some of the questions I posed may have come across as though I was making judgments, although I do have a particular point of view, I didn't want it to seem as if I was simply attacking you guys' system/culture. So no need to be defensive on your part either. I take the "we aren't stupid enough to let people have guns in the UK" comment in gest as I believe it was meant to be, but I did detect some defensiveness in the "tone", maybe I'm wrong. It's good to know the information you provided, I suspected that not ALL prison officers were armed in Britain, as they aren't all armed here in the US either, nor do they need to be. But I'm still having some difficulty seeing the logic in not having armed guards at the gates, prison officers or otherwise. An escape no matter how rare it is, is absolutely unnecessary if the prisoner escapes for no reason other than he/she is capable of outrunning the guards chasing them or defeated the attempts to subdue them. Anyway, before anyone feels the need to censure me for having turned this into a message board, I'll end this now because I know that this has no effect on the article. User 070 (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, it's fine. (And you know us Brits, we love a bit of sarcasm!) But I fail to see how killing someone just because they are running away is anyway sensible... was that what you were saying? ninety:one 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I see from your userpage that you favor strong gun control, you may be surprised that I don't have the polar opposite point of view. That being said, I'm not "anti-gun" either, pragmatism appeals to me more than ideology. However, I don't quite get gun control when it comes to the authorities. Does the wider British public not feel as though the authorities serve their collective interests? You asked where's the sense in shooting someone who's simply running away. Why do you identify with the interests of the person running way, rather than with the interests the authorities are serving - the public's; keeping the convicted criminal separated from it? Why are the interests of the former more legitimate than the latter? User 070 (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

WIDER DICUSSION MOVED TO User talk:Nick Cooper#Shoot to Kill/Shoot to Incapacitate.

Nothing personal here, but would you guys mind moving all of this, from User 070's first post, onto a usertalk page? This page is now pushing 38KB! ninety:one 17:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll try moving it to my page, I say try because Im somewhat awkward when it comes to these things. User 070 (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I was about to suggest it myself.... Nick Cooper (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved everything from User 070's edit of 00:34, 30 April 2009 to my own Talk Page, as that was when the subject went beyond the initial questions about shoot to kill & prison staff. Nick Cooper (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over claimed British police use of "machine guns"

I'm having a bit of a dispute over at Talk:Death of Ian Tomlinson over the inclusion of an erroneous press report that the Met's Territorial Support Group has access to "submachine guns" as opposed to the actual semi-automatic MP5 carbines used by Authorised Firearms Officers in the unit (which does not have any Specialist Firearms Officers attached to it). Other editors may wish to offer their opinion on the matter. Nick Cooper (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sig Sp2022

I was at A service station near Stansted Airport last week and saw officers carrying what appeard to Sig Sauer SP2022s. Anyone have any verification of this? I am at current trying to find some concrete reference source myself. Ryan2390 (talk) 10:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ammunition ?

In the light of the Gaurdian leak of the hollow-point bullet from the police radio in the Mark Duggan case 2011 London riots, there is a change to this ammo initially in London, but spreading UK-wide. Google [UK police bullets] for refs - I guess there was a Met Police Press Release (11th May 2011). Notable ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

British armed police have used hollow-points for quite some time, so this is not some sort of shock revelation. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hollow-point bullets are a sensible option if there is a danger that a round might go through the target and hit a bystander.

Northern Ireland Security Guard Service

Civilian Security Officers of the Northern Ireland Security Guard Service are attested as Special Constables so perhaps a mention of the Firearms issued to them might be worthwhile in this article (I'm afraid I cannot provide any info on the subject though).--Thefrood (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

British Transport Police do not use an MP5

in the article it states that BTP are in the progress of using MP5s. The source is a bbc article which has a picture of a MPS AFO with a MP5, the article is about BTP getting a firearms unit in the future, and the picture does not support the claim that BTP are using an MP5. this should be removed as BTP are using the LMT defender, the same as the chesire constabulary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chalky2000 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Historic Firearms

It would be nice if someone could add a section on weapons that have previously been used by British Police in years long gone. --Thefrood (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Shotguns

I know that Armed police sometimes use shotguns , in source 2 it says that Cheshire police carry a shotgun in their cars, and on this sky news link it shows them holding a shotgun, but it's hard to tell what model it is.

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16197901

Anybody know any specific models they use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newerafan2011 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

http://iccheshireonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0300nationalnews/2012/03/07/police-charged-over-pc-gun-death-50020-30477561/ indicates that Greater Manchester Police use a "Remington 870 pump-action 12-bore shotgun" --Thefrood (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

what happened to this page?

WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.176.65 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It is called political correctness. Twobells^t@lk 16:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't immediately see what you're referring to; is there some way the article can be improved? —me_and 17:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of police firearms in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090220125718/http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/operational-policing/firearms/ to http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/operational-policing/firearms/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111027212824/http://www.cheshire.police.uk:80/about-us/specialist-units/vector/firearms.aspx to http://www.cheshire.police.uk/about-us/specialist-units/vector/firearms.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091001020808/http://www.yorkshirearmycadets.co.uk:80/cadets/ecoy/ereport3.htm to http://www.yorkshirearmycadets.co.uk/cadets/ecoy/ereport3.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)