Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire About PoPo Militarization

I reckon this place would be a good test bed for the idea.

What would y'all think about cops having suppressors on a patrol rifle? Not a suppressor like in the movies that makes a gun silent but a real life model that just keeps the noise to a safe level? If you've never been around one, they're still loud....they just keep you from needing ear protection while shooting.

There have allegedly been cases of folks winning lawsuits against the police for firing rifles near them and causing hearing loss.

And I know of several cases of officers being unable to work after a shoot out because of hearing loss (they weren't completely deaf, but couldn't pass the department's hearing test).

If a suppressor was purchased by the officer, would you freak out that he used it at work?

dont know bout law enforcement over there but my understanding the use of them is considered part of being polite in England....no i have no more problem with law enforcement having them than anyone else....

If the sole effect is reduction of muzzle blast, I can't see why such devices would create a problem in the hands of police. Would not seem to be in the onerous category as with some other stuff.

I'm obviously biased, but yes, we need them.

My feeling though is that the majority of Americans would freak out. Too scary looking and all they know about them came from Hollywood

Members of this board probably know a lot more than the average American. But we're not the majority

No problem with them but the ones I've seen for pistols are pretty big. I doubt if an officer could keep one of the pistol and still holster the pistol. I doubt the officer would have time to put one on in a shoot out.

I've been interested in them for the .45 Auto but all the suppressors I've seen are big and add about 5" to the barrel making the overall length about 10". Even with 4" barrels on the pistol you are talking about 9" overall.

Using modern ammo that police tend to use I don't see how one can get the overall length under 7".

Rifles, DD.

Why not, any valid reason not to?

No, just wondering about the perception.

Go for it. I was interested in getting one until I fired a friends ar with suppressor. Total waste of money on a 223 as far as I'm concerned. But if leo's want them let them have them. I'm sure a rifle would be very loud indoors, and a silencer probably would help with that. I think they make a lot more sense on subsonic guns but that 223 removed any desire I had to buy a suppressor for mine.

Actually we bunch of 'gun nuts' are a very poor focus group for this suppressor idea. We are not likely to much care about suppressors. As 'gun nuts' we may though step back before the suppressor to our current concerns about the downrange safety issues of the round for which the rifle is chambered, and we 'liberty nuts' among the 'gun nuts' about its effective range or even about our allowing police rifles at all.

Suburban mommies are, however, sure to freakout about cops using those thingies that assassins in the movies use on the ends of their guns to quietly kill more people. Sharpton and Holder will lynch the first of you to use one against their folks - hell they'd take a Magic Marker and a curling iron to a cracker corpse if they had to for such an opportunity.

We have them. So far no complaints that I'm aware of.

Most folks around here would just shrug and walk away without a second thought. It's the kooks you've gotta appease.

A Surefire Mini is only 5.5" long and part of that covers your muzzle brake, so it only adds a few inches to the overall length. And if you run a long rail, it's doubtful anyone but a gun nut would notice it (even if they heard you shoot it).

Why not just use a 14" or shorter barrel?
Not enough velocity loss from 16 to 14 to matter.

The reference to barrel length was just to show that you can have a suppressor without it appearing that you've got a giant black dong hanging off the end of your barrel.

Al Sharpton would support that

Fine idea. Though, I gotta ask, how often do officers use a rifle?

Seattle just settled a sizable claim for hearing loss from a fire truck siren.

They are used quite often. Fired is a different story. Fortunately, most deployments of all our weapons end without them being fired.

But if it does happen, it's likely to be indoors and you can't garuntee innocents won't be in close proximity. Even bad guys who have surrendered don't deserve ear damage if we need to use them against someone else. And it would nice if we didn't suffer hearing loss ourselves.

Think clearing buildings and such. Your average everyday patrol officer will carry a carbine in his car somewhere. He ain't gonna have time to grab it all the time, but when he does, it would be good to mitigate hearing damage to anyone involved. Your SWAT types have all the time to plan. No reason for them not to have them either

Almost never (for the guys I work with, but I'm usually a couple of miles from my car so I couldn't get it even if I wanted it). I rarely get mine out, but I'm pretty comfortable with a pistol. As bad as most cops shoot I'd prefer them to have the steadier rifle, they're just easier to hit with.

We did a security / threat assessment for a local Target several years ago. You don't think about it, but there are 100 yard shots available in most stores of that type. The parking lot stretched out to 400 yards. I really think that's where the next "9/11" will be...a Wal-Mart on a busy Saturday morning.

I say if you guys can have them, then all Citizens should be able to have them.

I dont have a problem with it, it's not like the Coppers are gonna form a spike team on 'we the peoples'