SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    LEOs and suppressors
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
LEOs and suppressors Login/Join 
...and now here's Al
with the Weather.
Picture of guardianangel762
posted Hide Post
While suppressors are neat, they are really just a thing that makes the weapon more difficult to use in most situations. Most people in shoot scenarios having a weapon that is 6 in shorter and a pound lighter is better than having a gun that is thirty decibels quieter.

I have not been in an officer involved shooting myself yet, I have responded to them. Communication was not an issue everybody still heard their radios everybody was still transmitting. Officers were even transmitting while other officers were shooting in the background. I've had to sit with officers post shooting while waiting for their administrative processing. None of them complained about not being able to hear or ringing in their ears. So what suppressors appear to do to me is make the weapons more difficult to use while making them slightly nicer to be around when they're fired. When you look at them from that perspective they don't make a lot of sense. They definitely do have a place it's just not on a rank and file officers weapon. A lot of those guys actually are not shooters something that makes their weapon more difficult to use would be far more of a detriment than any advantage a suppressor gives.

Now some type of tiered qualification where a person has shown themselves to be truly capable with a weapon giving that type of person a suppressor might be advantageous. I kind of qualification where you have to truly demonstrate yourself as capable, not the dumbed down qualifications that most officers do. Completing something like that, which unfortunately, at least in my agency or any surrounding agency currently does not exist, makes sense.


___________________________________________________
But then of course I might be a 13 year old girl who reads alot of gun magazines, so feel free to disregard anything I post.
 
Posts: 9005 | Location: Lake Stevens, WA | Registered: March 20, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
The Quiet Man
posted Hide Post
I wish we had them on our rifles. I might not have truly terrible levels of tinnitus if that were the case.
 
Posts: 1821 | Registered: November 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Another thread that discusses gas being blown back into the shooter’s face when firing a suppressed AR-type rifle raises another question for me.

As is invariably the case when someone complains about or questions something like gas blowback, the apologists for the device are quick to say that all that’s necessary to prevent it is to have the right, carefully-selected and tuned equipment, to wear proper protective glasses and just be a man and put up with it, or perhaps to stand on one leg while whistling “Dixie.” I know, however, that sometimes things don’t always go as planned during critical law enforcement incidents.

The most obvious flaw with the “wear glasses” solution is that that’s not always possible for an LEO who isn’t a SWAT member and who has a couple of hours or even a couple of minutes to gear up before responding to a situation. A regular patrol officer who is cursing himself for the few extra seconds it takes to grab his rifle before running to an “officer down” call may not have protective glasses available, or think about putting them on even if he does. So then what happens? He fires the first shot, gas and possibly unburned powder or other particles are blown into his eye, and now he can’t see clearly, or perhaps not at all.

The guidance about tuning the weapon system with the proper gas block setting to match the ammunition and suppressor is somewhat better because all that can be done in advance of an incident. Hopefully that will be successful with each officer’s rifle, and there won’t be any, “Damnit! I can’t figure out what’s wrong with this gun; just remember to wear your glasses,” situations.

Unfortunately, though, generations of experience has demonstrated that not all LEOs care for and maintain their weapons as they should. In just my relatively limited experience I have seen countless examples of even the more conscientious officers failing to clean their guns of not only firing residues but also environmental dust and dirt for weeks after a range session. What if a suppressor is removed from the rifle for some reason, or using different ammunition has an effect on reliability or gas blowback? Will the gun function at all?

A good inspection and weapon maintenance program will help prevent such problems, but I’m reminded of the guidance we got in Vietnam about lubing our M16 rifles with the right oil and keeping them clean and dry, and then everything would be fine. Um …, yeah, okay. I’m sure all those guys slogging through swamps, rice paddies, and the jungle for days at a time will be sure to do that.

Some of all that may be more “What if?” scary talk to justify not permitting suppressors on patrol rifles than genuine problems. If I were a supervisor, however, they are the sorts of things I’d be considering when making a decision, and I must wonder how common that is. In my experience with how weapon systems are chosen by LE agencies, it isn’t very.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 40486 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rustpot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
Another thread that discusses gas being blown back into the shooter’s face when firing a suppressed AR-type rifle raises another question for me.

...

Some of all that may be more “What if?” scary talk to justify not permitting suppressors on patrol rifles than genuine problems. If I were a supervisor, however, they are the sorts of things I’d be considering when making a decision, and I must wonder how common that is. In my experience with how weapon systems are chosen by LE agencies, it isn’t very.


I would suggest that if you don't currently have an armorer that knows the answers to your questions you send him for more training or get with a company that will provide those services.

There are many shops that build a "modern" rendition of the AR that is properly tuned and tested, customized to your needs, of very high quality, and runs reliably with or without a suppressor with minimal gas to the face.
 
Posts: 5765 | Location: Romeo, MI | Registered: January 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rustpot:
There are many shops that build a "modern" rendition of the AR that is properly tuned and tested, customized to your needs, of very high quality, and runs reliably with or without a suppressor with minimal gas to the face.


Ah, yes: The “Just spend more money” solution. I hadn’t thought of that one. Wink

My comments are just musings because they will have no practical effect on anyone.

Members of my agency have lobbied for SBRs with suppressors over the years, but to the extent that anyone wants my opinion, I have other reasons to discourage the idea. It is, however, good to know that the problems could be mitigated if it came to that.

But just for curiosity sake, where would I go for “more training” to learn how to configure an AR to operate reliably with or without a suppressor and with minimal gas (I’d prefer no gas) to the face? I have attended a number of factory armorer courses during my career, but not one has so much as mentioned suppressors, much less how to do them right. Based on the large number of complaints about the issue I have read here, that knowledge and skill are evidently not very common. I am pretty certain that if I had brought up the idea in a class the response would have been something to the effect of, “Suppressors? Custom gas blocks? Those aren’t factory-authorized modifications. If your gun doesn’t function right, don’t come whining to us.”




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 40486 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rustpot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
But just for curiosity sake, where would I go for “more training” to learn how to configure an AR to operate reliably with or without a suppressor and with minimal gas (I’d prefer no gas) to the face? I have attended a number of factory armorer courses during my career, but not one has so much as mentioned suppressors, much less how to do them right. Based on the large number of complaints about the issue I have read here, that knowledge and skill are evidently not very common. I am pretty certain that if I had brought up the idea in a class the response would have been something to the effect of, “Suppressors? Custom gas blocks? Those aren’t factory-authorized modifications. If your gun doesn’t function right, don’t come whining to us.”


Sons of Liberty Gun Works and School of the American Rifle come to mind, both offer courses that address gas system balance as part of it. I know SOLGW selects gas port sizes for the rifles based on the assumption it will be suppressed, but doesn't need to be to run reliably. SOTAR is one of the better sources for gas system info, correct gauging of the rifle, proper installation of everything, etc.

SOTAR has some Q&A info sessions on ARBuildJunkie, and a lot of infomation can be gleaned from places like BlackRifleHaven.

The build I just reconfigured today uses a Triarc 14.5" midlength with an 0.0720" gas port. Hodge is a bit smaller and states he is building more suppressor-optimized, SOLGW is a bit bigger for all-round duty use. Paired with an A5 buffer setup and using a high-volume suppressor I get very little recoil, and hardly much of a change with high-pressure gas aside from some dumping back into the action. Add in an FCD upper with a secondary gas port under the case deflector and a Geissele charging handle and I don't notice gas. And I'm a lefty.
 
Posts: 5765 | Location: Romeo, MI | Registered: January 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Rustpot
posted Hide Post
Black River Tactical makes some gas block inserts, you tap the gas port inside the block and thread in the insert, good way to restrict an over-gassed gun without something less reliable like an adjustable gas block.

There are also gas tubes that do the same thing, you order a specific port size or get them undersized for tuning. Long-term erosion is a potential issue with the tube.

Ideally with a duty application you're not trying to tune the rifle to run 5.56 77gr, down to 45gr .223 Tula, so a lot of the advantages of running over-gassed or adjustable are just not part of the equation.

With a ton of players getting into the AR game a lot of the small nuanced information gets lost in translation. Lots of stuff being sold built on half-truths or misunderstanding of the function.
 
Posts: 5765 | Location: Romeo, MI | Registered: January 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Thank you for all that information and explanations.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 40486 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of ksss
posted Hide Post
We put suppressors on 100 issued Colt 11.5 AR's this year. We have had them on our .308's for years. They were under $400 a piece. We have not seen an issue with qualifications. I do see an issue with officers keeping them clean as a potential problem. Gas blow back is an issue that has been complained about. During training everyone has eye pro on, during an actual OIS of course they may not. The biggest seller was the health aspect of it. Nearly every OIS we have had in the past 15 years has involved a rifle, most where with 20" and 16" rifles, the 11.5's we have now are obnoxiously loud, double ear pro is recommended, much worse than the longer barreled versions. The idea of having 4-5 guys (or more) with potential hearing damage from an OIS was not acceptable. The work comp claims are substantial from those who have been negatively impacted by not having ear pro on a OIS. Someone here commented that this is seldom seen event, I don't think they are clued in to current events. The long guns are taken on any event that may involve gun play, so they are involved in the majority of shootings. The upside is incredibly high hit percentages, potential downside at least till we got the cans was hearing loss. Auditory exclusion common in these situations doesn't mean that hearing damage doesn't occur, it does, you just feel or hear it....typically. I was involved in one with my 20" rifle, fired two rounds, and didn't hear anything except a soft report of the rifle. The db coming out of the rifle of course didn't change, just my perception of it. Suppressors are good thing for LE and if it possibly helps make them more common place and the stamp would no longer be required, all the better.
 
Posts: 328 | Location: idaho | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Thanks for that discussion, ksss; good information.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 40486 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Charmingly unsophisticated
Picture of AllenInWV
posted Hide Post
In regards to blowback, I thought they had charging handles that addressed that? IIRC, some even had a DIY solution, some sort of sealant applied in a thin bead?

I normally wear glasses, and I have had some very minor blowback in my SBRs.


_______________________________

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
 
Posts: 15447 | Location: Cross Lanes, WV | Registered: February 05, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
certified biohazard
posted Hide Post
quote:
Nearly every OIS we have had in the past 15 years has involved a rifle, most where with 20" and 16" rifles, the 11.5's we have now are obnoxiously loud, double ear pro is recommended, much worse than the longer barreled versions. The idea of having 4-5 guys (or more) with potential hearing damage from an OIS was not acceptable. The work comp claims are substantial from those who have been negatively impacted by not having ear pro on a OIS. Someone here commented that this is seldom seen event, I don't think they are clued in to current events. The long guns are taken on any event that may involve gun play, so they are involved in the majority of shootings. The upside is incredibly high hit percentages, potential downside at least till we got the cans was hearing loss. Auditory exclusion common in these situations doesn't mean that hearing damage doesn't occur, it does, you just feel or hear it....typically. I was involved in one with my 20" rifle, fired two rounds, and didn't hear anything except a soft report of the rifle. The db coming out of the rifle of course didn't change, just my perception of it. Suppressors are good thing for LE and if it possibly helps make them more common place and the stamp would no longer be required, all the better.


Great take and so true. I was in the EMS realm of special response when the Columbine fast track happened and the Sheriff came out with their new plan to show off their new "Quad" strategy. After watching the show where simunitions were used in a school hallway, while the LEO's whispered to each other while searching for the active shooter without earpro, I approached a long time Deputy friend and asked him what he thought would happen if they fired off 5.56 rounds inside those hallways with no ear pro let alone non supressed which wasn't even thought of back in 1999. He looked at me with confusion until the light came on. Why all LEO operations don't supress since it's over 100 year old tech. is beyond me.....


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke
 
Posts: 498 | Location: Florida | Registered: February 18, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Years ago when my county’s tactical team was first organized and a little grant money started becoming available, the first thing I requested was Peltor combination noise canceling hearing protection and communication headsets for everyone. I can only look in silent amazement at any LE tac team that would be considering buying SBRs and/or suppressors before having proper hearing protection for its members. There really are a lot of not-too-bright people making decisions for such outfits.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 40486 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Contrary to belief, police administrations are resistant to change, especially change that effects their budgets. Furthermore, they look scary. Seriously. Even though it could help officers retain the ability to communicate and relieve the hope that auditory exclusion saves the officer from any hearing damage.

It takes critical incidents to affect positive change. Departments generally didn't allow patrol rifles until after the North Hollywood shootout, effective active shooter protocols weren't designed and trained until after Columbine...every major advancement or significant change in policy, procedures or equipment since the turn of the last century is directly linked to reactions to incidents.
 
Posts: 109 | Location: Fort Wayne, IN. | Registered: February 25, 2019Reply With QuoteReport This Post
certified biohazard
posted Hide Post
And then you have the current political climate which led to the Broward tragedy and a total failure of local law enforcement, FBI and the school administration. This was an event that could and should have been prevented. There truly is no standard except maybe on paper. Such a sad state of affairs......


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke
 
Posts: 498 | Location: Florida | Registered: February 18, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of ksss
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Plasteek:
Contrary to belief, police administrations are resistant to change, especially change that effects their budgets. Furthermore, they look scary. Seriously. Even though it could help officers retain the ability to communicate and relieve the hope that auditory exclusion saves the officer from any hearing damage.

It takes critical incidents to affect positive change. Departments generally didn't allow patrol rifles until after the North Hollywood shootout, effective active shooter protocols weren't designed and trained until after Columbine...every major advancement or significant change in policy, procedures or equipment since the turn of the last century is directly linked to reactions to incidents.



This is largely true, it takes real world events unfortunately to blow holes through existing tactics before things change. Few would have thought it would be necessary to put a locked door in an airliner before 911. Who would have thought that the surround and contain tactic used in SWAT and airline take overs could result in a higher casualty count then rushing in? It usually takes an adversary who thinks out of the box to make the case unfortunately. It is always easier to look back at tactics like that and see the faults, looking forward and anticipating what is a shitty tactic before you get bit by them is more difficult.
 
Posts: 328 | Location: idaho | Registered: May 13, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Cars have mufflers so they don’t damage the hearing of those around them and generally annoy people. Guns fired around people should be suppressed unless there is the time and opportunity to put ear protection on those around. Shooting unsurpassed around people who are not expecting it is a dick move, when a suppressor could just as easily be used. Hearing loss claims cost way more than suppressors. With the effectiveness and availability of modern suppressors it seems to me negligent for law enforcement to not have them.
 
Posts: 1383 | Location: Spokane, WA | Registered: June 23, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    LEOs and suppressors

© SIGforum 2019