An article in this mornings paper was describing numerous surrounding city's opting for a larger better trained combined SWAT forces due to budget restraints! It's Cheaper!

Described members installing $1,300 silencers on their M16's, saying that they both restrain recoil and help to hide the flash...

I guess, but sounds kind of like building up something other than a swat force.


Phil

hearing protection...whaddaya wooried about ? Your Osama will save you.

Hey man, don't want to disturb the neighbors ya know.

Can you swing by and pick me up?

Federal Grant Money I am fairly certain. Local and State not so much on that stuff fiscally.

Likely AR15's btw. Not many rock and roll toys in the arsenals.

Oh them evil silencers!!!

I'm in shock...

So they can poach deer from the SWAT van.

Restrain recoil?
They must have some real pu$$ies in SWAT.

Me too, that kind of behavior is plum suppressing.

Gunner

Two things...

1. Suppressors (not silencers) lower the sound level so the team can still hear after shooting inside a building.

2. The muzzle flash of a firearm inside a meth lab filled with volatile fumes can make the biggest, baddest "flash-bang" known to man.

That is all.

Ed

And your Romney if somehow elected will destroy this Country!
Just watch, but you all wanted it... heaven help us you might just get it!

But I'm still betin I'll be trying some new Barnes Busters soon after it's all over!

Phil

California is Obama's model for destroying the rest of America....not surprised you'd like him...

dead broke nanny state.

They've had them here for a couple of years. They don't want you to know where the sniper is shooting from as easily.

LOL!!

I've seen a suppressed 6920 at night. They are still an ignition source. Much less, but I wouldn't want to fire one in a room filled with fumes.

$1300 for a one time charge is MUCH cheaper than disability payments for hearing loss. Or training costs to replace an experienced officer.

Couldn't we save a lot of money on SWAT teams if we just sent the Rangers, Seals or Marine Recons in?

That is the truth!

I have fired a butt load of ammo indoors will take a suppressed rifle every time. My hearing is severely damaged due to weapons usage and other things. If I have an opportunity to use a suppressor on a weapon I will.

I also HIGHLY recommend them for communications issues. When things get chaotic, less noise is a good thing.

Usually in AARs the # 1 issue brought up is the break down in communication.

Utilizing suppressed weapons so guys can hear each other in real time, as well as hear communications over a radio is absolutely critical. In fact, the importance of such cannot be over stated. A miscommunication can be fatal.

MS

They are tyranny enforcement squads.

I think your correct. In CA a Peace Officer who gets Industrial Disability from CalPERS pays no taxes on it. And the State, Counties, and Cities, all want as much revenue as possible. So not only is disability expensive, they can't tax half of it back from you.

so they can shoot your dog without you knowing it

And they're right outside your door..

BANG!!

I am Ok with the suppressors. I like them myself. My comment was for the money spent which seemed to be a concern of the OP. A lot of that stuff comes through grants from the feds or drug and money seizures. That is how they get the good equipment usually.

We have a winner.

Ya'll be sure and give that tinfoil an extra wrap so none of the mind control waves can get through; you're close, its already stopped intelligent communication from leaving.

You wouldn't axe that querstion if you'd ever been in a interior stairwell with someone who'd let rip with an M4 on rock'n'roll.

"Ain't that the truth!!!!!!"

Now listen up, I am an ex-spurt......the real reason SWAT or any other police agency buys these types of evil things, is so they can moniter internet message boards and find out who the real kooks are. Until the internet was invented they had no way to get past the tin-foil hats.......so if you cant beat them you implant someone to get them to join, or disagree......and then they start rectally inserting the mind control devices.

haven't any of you guys been visited by the dudes in the glowing saucers yet? Take a twist out of your foil hats and embrace the knowledge of the other worldly beings who are trying to contact you through Hustler magazines and slim jim's (their first attempt was beer Hustler's and cheeto's, but to many people questioned their orange peckers)

That is all...

What??? I didn't hear that.

Hey Phil

Bet you're seeing those black choppers too...aren't ya???

Self explanatory....

They use 'em to hunt squirrels and it doesn't upset the tree huggers and PETA!

Sounds like the end of the argument to me.

$1300 each are very expensive suppressors

Who is the world is charging them $1300.00 each for suppressors? Sounds like somebody's brother in law is skimming the cream off the governments budgets! That's about double the average going price these days!

Yes, that'd be expensive for one suppressor. But this price most likely includes several other things like servicing, no cost replacement, etc... That's usually how agencies buy stuff.

Have somebody bust a few rounds off from an unsuppressed M4 inside beside you and you will immediately have your answer.

Maybe for the same reason that some hunters want silencers on their hunting guns. Because they can. Dang. Do we need to hand out the tin foil again?

Nope. Stuff you can put on a weapon is about the ONLY thing you can't buy with Fed Grant funds.

WTF, too much koolaid? If Obama hasn't made best work of destruction of the US, I damn sure don't know who has. Of course the views coming out of Kalifornia, are just like those of Europe( that must seem normal to Kevin Gibson also for some reason). IE they've been blindfolded so long they no longer realize what freedom is and can mean. But are addicted to a nanny state sucking hind teat

Or a few of them. It get's loud until the ringing takes over.

yeah, they're more into armored cars and diversity coordinators than stuff that goes bang

Not to be argumentative or anything, but hearing loss is not generally considered disabling.

How do you figure?

Typical non-gun person's attempt to write for the press release. Suppressors are devices that do just that: suppress blast and muzzle flash. Recoil is obviously not a major concern with 5.56mm rounds out of an 8-pound rifle.

Suppressors are a virtual necessity for SWAT because so much of their/our shooting is done indoors... both training and ops. If you have never been in an enclosed room when two or three guys let off unsuppressed 3-round bursts simultaneously, you ought to get some buddies together and try it sometime. Trust me, even with plugs and muffs, your ears will be ringing for several hours thereafter.

Suppressors are simply good for SWAT cops' occupational health... OSHA's gonna be mandating them soon, I hear, it's buried in the back pages of the Obamacare bill right there with the Cloaking Devices for the black helicopters being built for the Healthcare Police...

Not to be argumentative, but that is total bullsh!t. Check with the VA or OSHA about hearing loss disability before you enture your uninformed opinion next time.

If the loss is less than full, while a medical condition, there's not much that would prevent one from doing.

Doc, you may have a grasp of the medical issues, but not the legal issues.

I don't need to know about the legal issues to know that I have several patients with partial or total hearing loss who receive disability pensions from the VA and LEA's for hearing loss.

Interesting theory.

What's more interesting is that the entire medical community, the VA, OSHA, and most employers out there would disagree.

Not to mention the millions that are in fact disabled by partial hearing loss.

What's the legal definition of a disability?

OT, and tedious, but it depends on what standard is being applied. There's a million of them. There are millions of people with compromised hearing who are gainfully employed.

Was in Hong Kong years ago. Cops there where highly respected by the community and carried no weapons at all except a billy. Citizens had knives, clubs, spears maybe, bricks and rocks and chitt. Somehow it worked out.

Not really interested in emulating the Hong Kong model myself but the ongoing morphing of police power into military assault capability is not my cup of tea either. Having a little bit of a problem seeing the need for mufflers on SWAT weapons....but maybe it makes their twig 'n berries look bigger. Just a guess.

And there are millions of people missing arms and legs and eyes and with severe disfigurement who are gainfully employed, and they're receiving disability pensions too.

You asserted that hearing loss was not "generally considered to be disabling". You said nothing about "total disability", which I infer now is what you meant, and if that was in fact your point, I wouldn't argue with you.

My point is that partial disability is still a liability to the employer, and adds to the cost of running the business/agency. Preventing hearing loss by the use of suppressors and other hearing protection equipment reduces the incidence of hearing damage, hence the incidence and prevalence of hearing loss and disability claims related to it.

Not to be argumentative here, though...

Nope.The guys you mention are trained to make their mission their priority.

SWAT TEAMS,like other LEO's,are trained that "officer safety is paramount".At least that's what I keep reading in the newspapers when LEO's really screw the pooch.

Gotta agree with this, even the non-argumentative part...

You might be surprised to know where all those old M16s have ended up. I know of one small county sheriffs office here in Arkansas that has 3 A1s that are on permanent loan from the feds. The 3 M14s they have interest me more.

Bad comparison for a variety of reasons. While there are always exceptions, hearing loss, even if total, generally does not disable one from working, though it may qualify them for a given 'benefit', depending on which payor and what standard is being applied, whether contained in an insurance contract or statute.

Why does that not surprise me? Fast and Furious to Cartels OK. Suppressors to LEO's...NO

OSHA required it after some of our SWAT guy's complained. Buncha puzzies who needs hearing, I mean after a while you get use to the ringing...

Not just for hearing protection. The use of suppressors increase the safety level for all involved during SWAT operations.

This is a stupid question.


Travis

Y'know, upon further reflection that's what I shoulda written instead of my well-intentioned and reasonable post.

Makes three of us...
Ed

I've said it before. They should have nothing more than a model 10 or equivalent, and 6 rounds of wadcutters.

And NO practice ammo.

Actually, everyone's safety is paramount. There lies the problem. It's a hell of a lot easier when keeping the bad guys alive is not a priority.

You have a point there.

But the military often takes on assignments expecting casualties on their side.

Law enforcement doesn't do that , do they?

Big difference there.Adopting the tactics of the military , but redefining the ROE gets you Ruby Ridge,Waco,and Tucson.

What? A botched job is a botched job. WTF does that have to do with suppressors?


Travis

[/quote]Bad comparison for a variety of reasons. While there are always exceptions, hearing loss, even if total, generally does not disable one from working, though it may qualify them for a given 'benefit', depending on which payor and what standard is being applied, whether contained in an insurance contract or statute. [/quote]

Looking at it from the military side if my commo is a radio I don't want a hearing impaired guy manning the radio. So in that context it does physically prevent you from doing a job. I have combat related hearing loss and it is bad enough I would be a liability if I had to monitor a radio in combat (I'm in an instructor slot now).

Not one damned thing!

I've shot a lot of wadcutters and I don't think they're loud enough to require a suppressor.

If you were on a SWAT team raiding a Meth Lab what would you prefer? A noisy dog or a silenced dog?