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'

Why is a suppressor considered "military"? (from the thread title)

That there even is ANY REGULATION on suppressors of any sort for anybody hits me as being uber stupid...

The fact that they are included in any sort of gun control regulation is provenance that congress is too ignorant about guns to enact any sort of law about them. Period.

Even countries that have the most severe gun in the world have no restrictions on suppressors. They even encourage use of them, for the obvious benefits.

Whether they are police, or anyone else should make no difference either.

The only thing that makes any sense at this point concerning suppressors, is deregulation of them.

Didn't realize .223 made so much noise.

Agreed...May as well regulate mufflers on vehicles as well

This

Ever fired one inside a building?

salient point! Had an accidental discharge with my .45ACP inside the guard shack one night while on guard duty in the Marines. It was deafening.

Yep. I think they should be available to anyone who can legally own a firearm.

Certainly might improve the ability to hear and comprehend orders and etc in the middle of a bunch of noise. Commo can sure be an issue in these situations.

If LEO are already packing such a rifle I see no issues with a suppressor.

I don't care, but the know nothings and the media ( faux news included) would freak.

Why just LE?

The day they become legal for civilians w/o a stamp, I say fine.

Blue, several members made some relevant points regarding the politics etc. But as a practical matter, I wouldn't consider suppressor use to fall under the "militarization" category. You are just extending "Serve and Protect" to include hearing protection.

Now come asking for a silencer to fit the 25mm cannon on your Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and I might see that a little different.

The ownership of suppressors should be subject to the same requirements as firearms. I see no reason for law enforcement or anyone else to be restricted in their use.

LOL

You know cops have to pay the tax too, right?

"Patrol Rifle" is code for "Army Tank". I just didn't want to get y'all's feathers ruffled.

No issue with the police using suppressors since they are legal in most states for the citizens to use and own.

Suppressors are great for doing raids in Meth labs that are volatile!

Sorry did not realize suppressors were for a rifle.

A word of caution if the purpose is to reduce the noise of a rifle, most likely a .223, inside of a building one would have to use sub-sonic ammo in order for the suppressor to be of much of an advantage. A rifle using standard velocity ammo with a suppressor tend to be louder than without the suppressor. Inside of a building the noise with suppressor is even louder. I asked a retired military sniper why that is so and he said the suppressor reduces noise down range but blows the noise back at the shooter.

Our outdoor range is enclosed on three sides with a roof. One time up at the range there were a group of guys shooting everything from pistols to rifles with suppressors and all the weapons using standard velocities ammo with suppressors were extremely loud with the suppressors attached. Only the sub-sonic ammo which included .22lr were quiet and hearing protection wasn't needed. Everything else needed hearing protection not to harm one's hearing.

Before departments start buying suppressors I would check them out especially inside of buildings with different brands of ammo including sub-sonic and make sure everybody is wearing hearing protectors.

Yep, police should be able to get them tax free even for personal use. Civilians shouldn't be able to have them period.

I don't know what to say, I just felt compelled to quote that.

Cooking for snipers doesn't make you a sniper.

All I can say is make damn sure you are wearing hearing protection if you shoot a weapon with a suppressor using standard velocity ammo especially inside a building. Don't say you haven't been warned.

I would have no problem with that at all. I'm of the mind that it's pointless to regulate suppressors for lawful use.

That's just about the stupidest thing I've read on this board to date.

So I guess you missed this little gem:

This place is amazing, ain't it?

It's a dead heat..

Put down the call of duty and step away..

I'm sure we won't have to wait long for one of them to better it...
PS- It seems like DD is confusing suppressors with muzzle brakes--I hope so.

Hey, even COD gets that one right....
What I think he needs to put down is some of Colorado's finest farm product.

Sorry Pira, I think they've proved you wrong on that one.

So you're saying that shotgun suppressor you tested wasn't louder?

Nope, I'm not confusing anything. A .223 flies at about mach 2 to mach 3. There will still be a lot of noise even with the suppressor and hearing protection will be needed if you aren't going to lose your hearing.

I'm trying save everyone's hearing. Go ahead and shoot without hearing protection I don't care. Ask your self why do ammo manufacturers manufacture sub-sonic ammo for suppressor use if there was no need for it.

You didn't say "alot of noise", you said the suppressor would make it louder. Are you now backing off from this position?

We've got one idiot that didn't know guns were loud and another that thinks suppressors make them louder.

What if I wrap a .223 suppressor in blue tape while opening a bullet box, what happens then? A black hole of retardedness collapses around me?

This is awesome.

I hope it never ends.

Someone ask DD when the last time she was out of the house.

Shall we?

I hate to totally derail one of Bluedreaux's threads though.

Any serious thread is about done whenever sherp_a_pee, DD or TRH shows up..

So show us some documentation of testing in which a suppressed rifle got louder using any kind of ammo, measured from any perspective

Might as well ask a dog to recite from memory multiplication tables as ask DD for proof of her positions.

Please do. This has great potential.

At least someone ask DD how sound goes BACKWARDS from a suppressor.

I'm afraid if the popo gets cans they will just murder the [bleep] outta everyone. I mean that's what they do with tasers. Provoke an argument just so they can electrocute them. Just think if they could shoot citizens with a silenced rifle.

Thank God however that rifles are actually louder with suppressors on them.

Now that that fear has been put to rest, how about this weather? Phoucing beautiful up in heah.

Scotland should forego independence. They thrived under British rule (welfare) and now think they can sit at the table all on their lonesome?

Edit to add: The tie in is because it is considered discourteous to discharge a rifle in the UK without a noise enhancing suppressor on your rifle.

My thoughts exactly - from a practical standpoint it makes a lot of sense. Then there is the position of "How often are weapons used in the line of duty" which bring the cost/benefit analysis issue up to add to the media aspect of selling the idea to the public.

I know having just returned from S Africa, the PH's would love it if every client ran a suppressor while hunting over there.

Good question thought - just don't think you will sell the idea anytime soon.

Jewish-Banking Cartel-Propaganda

Doctored Zionist footage is inadmissable in the Celtic court.

Why should anyone believe that over what derby doody says?

We just need to get HE rounds to gow withbthe "grenade" launchers the DOD is giving us

Or the Taser Bolo rounds. 40 electrically charged 000 sized bearing, attached to each other with small wires. That way you can tase a whole city block all at once!!

will they work on coyotes? sounds like some sort of award winning video footage to me....

"Catch and release" next year in TN!

Blade for the one that's a keeper!

George

Have you ever actually heard a 223 shot with a suppressor? I was just out shooting with mine 20 minutes ago. 40 grain bullets at 3800 fps. My dad was inside the house reading a book, 75 yards away, and didn't hear the rounds go off. Granted is it rather windy, and he doesn't have the best hearing. But still.....

To the OP: I believe everybody should have suppressors. It's a public health issue.

I am hard against ANY TYPE OF MILITARIZATION of the PoPo's but I don't care about suppressors either way, as long as they are attached to K-38's & worn by PoPo's wearing nice blue shirts, nice slacks with a stripe up the side & nicely shined low cut, laced shoes.

MM

Can they only hire 6'+ white guys, issue them wooden batons, and saps to go with the K38s?

Beat a fuggin confession out of that [bleep], and not look scary while doing it!

Only if they are going to walk a beat.............

MM

I suppose they could wrap something on the baton to quieten the cracking when it busted skulls. But would that actually make the noise louder?

BTW offer them a piece of gum after. How long has Doublemint been around?

How about a deputy in a rural county with a large area to patrol? Would it be cool if he was driving a beat?

But I like these guys!

Deputies are unconstitutional.

I'll accede to the rural boys patrolling in cars.......not SUV's, not anti-tank vehicles, not half-tracks with mounted 50's though.

MM

They still look like cops though, not Navy Seal or Delta Force wannabees...............

MM

MM,

My point exactly!

Last summer I spent most of my time in shorts on a Polaris 4Wheeler. But I also let about a gagillion kids turn on the lights and talk on the PA and let the ladies check out my sculpted calves. Are those OK, as long as I'm still friendly?

As long as you wear the tie and bus driver cap dealie. Tie can be snap on!

Cops who look like SEALS are scary.

So are AR-15's.

Both should be banned, because they're scary, and can hurt someone, right?

Thompson, optional.

I don't understand how grown men can allow them selves to be scared solely based on the clothing someone is wearing? And cars= good but SUVs= bad, that's some fugged up logic

Experience tells me that an SUv is a much better rural patrol vehicle, based o. Thisng like ground clearance and 4WD capability.

The. Again we have an extremely looking evil new explorer unmarked and painted in that utmost frightening color "robins egg blue". Just pure intimidation

Pfftt, we've got a pink Crown Vic for breast cancer awareness. You've gotta have balls to roll through the hood in that thing.

We just have the pink ribbons. We are even allowed to pin them to our Black uniforms

The shorts are ok, so long as they are khaki, and not camo. Especially not that Urban Camo, because that stuff is really scary.

Why isn't there a testicular cancer VW Bug to roll thru Zilker in?

Inquiring minds wanna know?

That's good stuff, & I feel confident in saying you're one of the really good guys...............

But,

The above special times aside, what do you look like on a regular basis when you are on patrol or walking a beat, if you even do that?

From my POV, it's all about perception, & highly militarized PoPo's drive an US vs THEM syndrome.

Not saying there isn't a need /can't be, special units, but the non-special LEO's need to change their look, attitude & actions.

Obviously, lots of exceptions, here & there.

MM

Considering when that picture was taken, that Thompson may have been his personal weapon.

Because we would rather look at breast then ballsacks.

You miss the point..................

I gave you more credit that that.

MM

Yeah, cuz what I wear is important to how I treat people.

You ever try to run in that stuff? Or wrassle around in the mud with a guy while wearing that stuff?

I spend my shift wearing BDUs. Not because we're trying to look like Ricky recon ranger seal, but because it's functional. It's cheaper for us to replace (yes, we buy our own). They have more pockets to put stuff. It's just better all around.

I do wish we didn't blouse our boots though. No real need for that outside of looks. I'll give ya that one, but that's it.

Police rank structure and uniforms have ALWAYS been modeled after the military. Since the beginning of organized police forces. County Sheriff's in America were an exception to that until relatively recently. They wore what they could afford and used the gear that worked for their environment. In the early days if our country, especially in the West, they often couldn't afford anything other than what a guy brought with him to the job. So the common dress and firearms of the day was it. Doesn't mean they didn't wish they had more.

This whole militarization thing has gotten way out of hand. In that, it doesn't exist. At all. Those of you who believe it have been hoodwinked by alarmist media. Taken in, hook, line, and sinker.

But even if it did, clothing certainly has nothing to do with it. Our military once wore exactly what you described a cop should wear now. Ever think of that? Where did you think that uniform came from?

The VW is for free prostate exams.

I know!!! Ain't it interesting!

I know exactly what you mean
It's quite sad

I don't know what county you are in, but in mine there are plenty of county roads a deputy could reasonably be expected to patrol or respond to a call on that are many times not passable in a car.

Around here, during the winter we call those City Streets.

Blah, blah, blah, blah.

Did YOU ever think the the taxpayers pay your salary & WE should decide what your dress code should be............just like in business, the owners get to make the rules. (In the case of PoPo's, we, the taxpayer, should also bear the cost of your duty clothing.)

You don't like that, find another career.

Don't misunderstand, Pira; I think your a good, & generally logical & sensible guy from most of your posts........but there are other views on this contrary to what your emotions may make you feel.

MM

Don't take it all literally, just making a point...........

MM

MM, you pay for the welfare and food stamps, shouldn't you be able to require a drug test?

mike r

For conversation....His taxpayers must be OK with it and that's really all that matters.

Most folks would probably find my uniform highly unprofessional but the people I work for think it's great, and that's all that matters.

You're partially correct........

You don't pay for anything I'm regards to my uniforms or equipment.

My employers, the taxpayers in my AO, do get to make the call on what I wear and what firearms/equipment I have available. If you want your local LEOs in crisp blues carrying wheelguns, get to it. I'm fairly certain my employers disagree....contrary to what your emotions make you believe.

George

True, but that's not the case everywhere.

What is the uniform? (Of a patrol guy)

MM

ATVs or bikes is the norm for us, if we're not on foot. So our uniform fits the task. It's about as far from shined shoes and bus driver hats as you can get. But it's also about as far from a military uniform as you can get.

Running shoes


Blue cargo shorts

And a super reflective "i'mrightherepleasedon'trunoverme" shirt

The shirt has my name emblazoned on the front to make complaining about my sarcasm easier.

And I usually wear sunglasses so people can't see me rolling my eyes at them.

And about those suppressors.........

You mean loudeners? They make things louder so now I think they're a bad idea.

Couple of points.

You must have missed the part where I said I buy my own. A lot of agencies are that way.

And I pay taxes too. So that makes me at least equal in the decision making process of what I wear. Maybe a bit more because I have experience working in it.

And finally, 90% of the people we contact are not tax payers. They're tax users. Just sayin.

bazinga

While I am happy for your great private sector success that has made your taxes alone exceed your government pay and benies, the only way that a government non-worker can ever pay taxes; almost every other government non-worker pays no taxes and is a much worse tax user than even the 'welfarians.'

Ummm, what? That made no sense if it was directed at me

The thought is that since you are paid from the public coffer that whatever you pay back in taxes doesn't count.

It was in Yiddish, i had to translate it on Google.

Where do you put the steel plates?

Police need to be militarized to do their job. They are in a war against various forms of crimes committed by civilians and as such have to approach US civilians like any other army would approach their enemy. It is also why police use the term "civilian" in a derogatory way along with various ethnic slurs when talking about the enemy they face as a way of dehumanizing them much like krauts, nips, slopes, gooks, dune coons, and similar terms have been applied to enemies on other battlefields.

You wrote that you were both a paid cop and a taxpayer.

I wrote that I was happy for your great private enterprise success, that is a prerequisite to your statement being accurate and honest.

Government non-workers are paid by the same government to which taxes are paid. Government entities circulating money amongst themselves can be many things, but none of those are actually and honestly paying taxes.

Government non-workers can only pay taxes if their private sector income is great enough to incur taxes that exceed their government income.

Government non-workers are, except for those very few with large private sector incomes, much worse tax users than are any welfare recipient.

Like I said........

Got it. Thanks.

I didn't realize cops were the only ones who benefited from those taxes. I feel even more special now

I gotta go move cows tomorrow on a wheeler.


Little different wardrobe.



You patrol offroad?

The police, or any other local or federal government agency can get suppressors now without the tax stamp.

The purchase order just has to written on your department letterhead to the manufacturer.

I even ordered one for my wildlife specialist duties.

No biggie.

I just don't think there needs to be any restrictions on them whatsoever...

For those that have not shot one... A .223 suppresses to sound like a report of somewhere between a .22lr and a .22 Mag.

It ain't the little "Pffttt" we hear I the James Bond movies. But, it does help with hearing issues down the road.

Not only cops benefit from, or use, taxes.

All government non-workers benefit from and consume our taxes: politicians, cops, inmates, welfare recipients, and assorted other government employees.

Great idea and likely one that would reduce disability collection upon retirement.

Our local sheriff's department is a joke. It's not what they where, it's how they wear it. They look like sloppy, homeless people. Ripped jumpsuits, backwards baseball caps, etc etc.

Buying it as an individual to be personally owned?

Rovering, you should be happy to pay for the gear the cops use to beat your dumb azz all the way back to the ghetto while real humans applaud their unwarrented use of force. I hope you enjoy having to pay to have your rights violated by "the man" you snivelling butt nugget. Remember to vote Republican.

mike r

We aren't allowed to wear baseball caps in uniform. If you're in Dress,or class A uniforms you will wear a campaign hat whenever you'reout of the vehicle, unless you're inside a building. If you are in class B, no hat in the summer, and a knit hat in the winter is optional

No, it has to stay with the department if you leave.

Skeeters are bad here tonight. Bad in fact as I've ever seen them here.

Worked with my son on drawing from the holster and plugging targets. Downed bear/deer were the scenarios tonight. Bugger can shoot that mod 60 well enough to almost put me to shame. Getting quick out of the holster to boot. In a couple years he'll really be something I reckon. Accuracy is there SA, need to work on the DA though and the speed from the holster. Though he's quick enough to beat some adults I've seen.

In the event he decides to grow up and put on a uniform, I want him proficient with S&W's and wadcutters.

Yeah, I'm off the road probably 90% of the time. Nice change of pace.

Down there patrolling those Beach bunnies, or is it College Coeds?

Better get him used to a clamshell or a swivel holster ad well, I hear that Cops are going to go back to those when they return to revolvers...

Darn. And I was training my daughter for a life in LE with a Midgas AR and 30 round mag dumps.

Your local sheriff is elected, right?

Not bad, actually pretty nice.

Keep in mind my original post about the uniforms was TIC to the opposite end of the spectrum from military style uniforms.............some (LEO's) here are just overly sensitive (manage & control) even about clothing; their way or the highway.

Lots of happy mediums short of either extreme..........but I'll say again, I dead set against militarization. Not just because of the appearance, but more so because of the attitude & mindset it promulgates. It comes out even in an internet discussion of attire with some.

MM

I understand the purpose of the looser fitting uniforms but I do not like them. I think they look like schit even when starched and pressed.



Travis

I've noticed that borderline in shape guys look worse in BDUs, but really out of shape guys look horrible no matter what. But yeah, the BDUs do accentuate a big belly.

If you're in good shape, and they're sized right, they can look good. We wear the 5.11 brand. I like it because it's durable and cheap. I don't like it because they're hot and oversized.

We used to wear ProTuffs, actually made for paramedics, and they were the best overall. Just pricey. But they went out of business. It was owned by a local guy who just decided to hang it up one day.

We can wear ball caps in inclement weather only. Knit cap when the watch commander says it's cold enough.

Class A's are long sleeve, tie, Ike Jacket, and Smokey Bear cover. All borrowed from the military decades ago by the way. Wonder why that's OK?

I can't imagine telling officers they can't wear a cover. Just makes no sense to me. Can someone help me with that reasoning?

The ike jacket, tie and overl shoulder belt are what we call "dress, or parade" uniform. Our class A is a normal patrol uniform. Black trouser with gold stripe. Black uniform shirt basketweave leather, and a campaign hat. Class bs are tdu style, with a polo shirt. And an optional external vest if you choose. We even have set dates for long sleeve/ short sleeve. Oct first for long sleeve and may 1st for short sleeve. We also have a no facial hair policy, except for mustache, but must not extend beyond upper lip.

Just the way it's been for years. You wanna wear a hat, wear your class A's.

Same as the U.S Army. I guess that makes you Uber-Militarized?

If it's AI it does.

Ironically, they don't think it looks professional

I'm in tears

So Mac, do y'all have loudeners on y'all's rifles?

Just in case anyone is skipping to the last page. Wouldn't want them to miss all of this.

Blue;
Good evening to you sir, I'm hoping that you and your fine family are doing well as of late.

I was going to say something out of character and semi-sarcastic - you know, like I'm shocked you folks allow any militarism whatsoever in your police forces. We'd never do such a thing up here across the medicine line in civilized Canada.....



Oh wait, so yah Blue - only the DRESS uniforms are paramilitary.... yah that's it......

On the subject of suppressors, I do know the ERT teams in the RCMP and various city PD's use them up here.

We're just moving into the '90's and talking about issuing an AR based "patrol carbine" for the RCMP - which considering the rural areas they patrol is long, long overdue.

I might wish they don't need patrol carbines or suppressors up here Blue, but as the old Ian Tyson song says, "wishin' don't make it so...".

The thread has made for some fine reading though tonight and for that I'll say a heartfelt thanks to the participants - one and all.

Stay safe out there Blue, all the very best to you and your fine family and good luck on your hunts too.

Dwayne

No words of wisdom from take a pee yet?

Dwayne, I hope you're having a grand weekend. We got a cold front here, all the way down into the 60s last night. Folks were bundled up today.

And if you ever come across one of those helmets with a spike I'd appreciate you sending it my way. I could spear people with it if they knocked me off my bike.

Blue;
Thanks for the reply, it's good to hear you're surviving the cold spell.

Actually our falls are a bit weird here as it was 80�F here today and might come close to freezing tonight.

I was trying to count points on a bull elk yesterday morning and wasn't quite acclimatized for the 30�F temps I was sitting in perched on the rocks - in the wind - so I was shaking so bad it was tough to count the points on the bull in question.

As it turned out Blue, he'd only grown 5 on one side and 4 on the other - big, BIG 5x4 though so he was nice to watch for a bit.

On the toad stabber attached pith helmet, I'll keep an eye out for one but have got to say don't hold your breath as some of the older gear has become quite collectible nowadays.

In my checkered youth I missed out on a couple New Service revolvers marked correctly that still make me sniffle a bit today as they weren't asking that much for them.

There was a correctly marked drill sword too that makes me shake my head in sadness, but that's a tale for another evening Blue.

Dibs to you on a pith helmet though for sure my cyber friend.

All the best to you folks Blue.

Dwayne

Sorry Blue I can't hear you, the loudener made me deaf.

I have one on my sbr and contrary to dd, it doesn't make it louder.

Revolvers do have a legitimate role in enforcing laws on civilians as mentioned here:

http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ng-of-12-year-old-boy-40-years-ago.html/

Can't recall if he was the main shooter or assisting, but that brave officer was in on killing another perp a few years before he took that one off the streets permanently as well.

There's sherp_a_pee..

Knew she couldn't stay away from this one.

someone doesn't know a brake from a suppressor

She insists she does.. Of course, the old girl hasn't been outside in years, but that's why she fits in with the freakshow regulars so well.

Just sherp and I am a male. Of course I will be here giving credit where credit is due.

Surprised you are here though. Thought that on Sundays you take playground photos to Taylor Bain at Montana State Prison?

Hey sherp, what brand camera do you not own?

And tell us more about your law enforcement career. Derby is slacking in the humor department.

Thanks,
Travis

Why would I tell you about something I do not own instead of telling you about the type of camera I do own? That makes as much sense as you asking about me being in LE which you have been told repeatedly that I am not.

Just a simple civilian police supporter and I support exactly the same police actions you support.

Suppressors for police, sure. Mall Ninjas, oh hell no.

But they need them for their custom take down single shot 300 Win Mags. You know, the ones that they provide cover with by using their ceramic plate accessorized brief cases

Hot damn - a straight-forward, common-sense answer.

Take a screen shot of it. Almost never happens

All AR, M-16 platforms should be suppressed. They are loud as hell and it sucks when you get 7 or 10 guns busting rounds off all around you. 1,000 times worse in a ship or oil rig.

The beauty of a suppressor in combat is that if you are being shot at, you will not know the direction of the shooter which is extremely helpful for a miss or multiple engagements. Also, it tends to draw considerably less attention and return fire to the user.

Suppressed rifles are great for maintaining S/A (situational awareness). It keeps stress down on team mates and allows for normal communications. They all but wipe out muzzle flash.

I have no problem with cops having them. Everyone should be able to get them without all the hooha circle jerk with ATF etc...

Interesting picture from yesteryear. The thing I was looking for was what kind of magazine were they using......stick or drum!?? I saved the picture out, zoomed in on it to try and figure it out. I put a red box around the area where I'd think a magazine should be viewable, presuming that the guy is holding onto a pistol grip. I also added a smaller blue box around what appears to be the guy's badge, behind where one would think a stick or drum magazine would be....thoughts??

Unloaded for a photo op?

That was probably the case, another situation of PC/publicity neutering, "Oh we can't have a picture of our popo with a loaded Thompson!!"......oh the shame?? I wonder when that picture was first published/presented to the public how many folks noted there was no magazine!!? :-)

Suppressors kick ass.



Travis

What happen to Derby?

Suppressing his inner tranny? I think it's getting louder.

Save that for a thread about suppressors.

I'd love to see 12" AR's and something like an Elite Iron CQC on every AR in the country.

Suppressors are a lot like armored cars, and helmets. Only those driven by emotion find them offensive.



Travis

You are a fugging moron.



Travis

Holy fugg....




Travis

At one time, I was issued a set up just like that except 11.5 barrel. Sweet set up for mounted.

derby doesn't,

Does this sound louder than a standard 16" AR to you? Camera is approximately 2' from the muzzle:





Travis

I bet all he had at the time of photo were loaded mags. And they are heavy! Nobody gave a damn about whether the police had a stick or drum in it or not back then. Unless you were running contraband beverages makins' to your favorite speakeasy!

Bet the photo was all about the bike. And someone said "hey Clancy! Hold up that new Chicago piano you picked up last week!" And the pic was snapped!

Now put that in the local picayune!

In OK with it, as long as I can have one for my rifle too IF I choose to.

You can't have one now?



Travis

Clarification...if LEO's are subject to the same 'streamlined' process to get one as the rest of us are...I'm cool with it.

Driving down Front street in Natchitoches, La , back in '66. At every intersection there was a State Trooper or two armed with what looked like a Thompson SMG. Don't know what they were expecting but it didn't happen.

Was told later they weren't Thompsons but a semi auto look alike called Eagle.

I think it's funny that long arms scare people.



Travis

We are. The "Department" is not.

And therein lies the problem for me...if through "The Department" LEO's are able to get one quicker and easier than I can, I'm opposed to that.

I understand. My point is, that for all practical purposes, most of us can't get anything any "quicker and easier" than you can. Hell, in Texas, a CHL holder doesn't even have to do a background check to buy a firearm, while LEO's do.

The department can buy one for department use without the wait and hassle.

I cannot buy one "through the department" for personal use though.

Because everyone knows you can only trust a Cop whiles he's on duty. One he takes off the pretty blue clothes he becomes an evil citizen and can't be trusted.

Since buying my first suppressor I have decided anybody without a suppressor is a loser.



Travis

Why do you want your gun to be so loud?

Helps you shoot better.



Travis

DERBY DUDE:

A word of caution if the purpose is to reduce the noise of a rifle, most likely a .223, inside of a building one would have to use sub-sonic ammo in order for the suppressor to be of much of an advantage.

A rifle using standard velocity ammo with a suppressor tend to be louder than without the suppressor. Inside of a building the noise with suppressor is even louder.

I asked a retired military sniper why that is so and he said the suppressor reduces noise down range but blows the noise back at the shooter.