Captain Seafort wrote:It's also, as Granite mentioned, the HQ of 22 SAS.
Again, one of those cultural differences. I'd consider any sort of internal law enforcement issue that required the services of the SAS to be a failing of the "standard" law-enforcement mechanism; you guys, apparently, consider it to be a natural progression of things. Again, neither can be said to be right or wrong, rather just a cultural difference.
Captain Seafort wrote:It's not a matter of ballistics, although having a barrel twice as long will obviously help.
Well, making such a big deal about the difference in effective range sort of does make it a matter of ballistics. My contention was merely that a range advantage of 200m over 50 or 70m is probably not as much of an advantage as it seems when it comes to police usage.
Captain Seafort wrote:The main difference, as I pointed out, is that an SMG is ergonomically far superior to a pistol.
To that, I'd say that this is a matter as much of training and usage as it is of any objective advantage. Someone involved in CAS, for example, would be a lot more accurate with a older-style single action revolver than with a M1911, even though the objective conventional wisdom says that the grip angle of the .45 is more ergonomically friendly. Likewise, pistols are inherently more accurate than revolvers; but a shooter who has spent his whole life sighting through a u-notch and pulling the heavy trigger of a DA revolver will shoot more accurately with a revolver than with a pistol.
Captain Seafort wrote:A what?
A back-up gun. Many officers over here will carry one for various reasons: if the main sidearm needs to be shelved for purposes of concealment, for example; or for the fact that drawing a handgun is generally quicker than dropping and swapping a mag, especially if the mag release on the departmental sidearm isn't ambidextrous or is otherwise unsuited for fast use by the shooter; or if there is a jam or misfire (most police sidearms are pistols) and there isn't time for a TRB; etc., etc.