View Full Version : Suppressors for SWAT
Mods/staff, feel free to move to LEO section if appropriate, with my apologies.
To all,
I've been tasked with researching and proposing suppressors to my SWAT chain of command. The suppressors would be used on 2 18", .223 semi-auto sniper rifles that we use for long interior cover and close precision support. Platform-wise, think 18" SPR type guns. Role-wise, think Designated Marksman vs Sniper. Ammo for the time being is Hornady 75gr TAP. Expected ranges from 25 yds to 200.
So far, all I can say with that we'd want one that has minimal shift from mounted to unmounted, and has quick detach capability, since we wouldn't run them at the range, or at every incident, out of concern that we'd wear them out. I hear Surefire is particularly good in this regard, and USMC'03's review was excellent. But I'm not set on any particular brand.
So my question is: for those of you that have them approved or are in the process right now, how did you sell the idea to the bosses? Are there any documented cases of hearing loss from close quarters gunfire? Empirical data? OSHA? My primary angle right now is the cost analysis of 2 suppressors, versus the cost of outfitting each operator with earpro/comms and a compatible helmet, or the cost of treatment or disability for a deaf entry element.
Any help is appreciated. Respond, PM if necessary.
Thanks for looking.
I think this article might be what you're looking for and should give you some ammunition, so to speak. http://www.ccijax.com/action/index.php/main/index-single/patrol_riflesupress_or_not/
By Carl R. Hospedales
I write this article not to preach, but to generate logical discussion on the use of suppressors within the Law Enforcement family. What is a Suppressor? A Suppressor also known as a Silencer, Low Signature System or "Can", are automatically thought of as equipment of Spies and Special Forces. As equipment of the “elite”, Suppressors are used to eliminate 2 of the 3 items that generate sound when a firearm is discharged;
1. Muzzle Blast (Hot gases propellant exiting the barrel)
2. Sonic Crack (As the round passes the transonic speed, approx 1120 ft/sec)
3. Cycle action of a firearm (Physical movement of the slide, bolt carrier, etc…)
In truth suppressors/silencers aren’t silent, they only reduce the level of sound produced by approximately 30dB (Decibels), subject to suppressor design. What does 30dB mean? In a nutshell the normal sound level for a rifle report is somewhere between 150dB - 160dB. Reducing the sound level by 30dB, according to research in Europe, has a dramatic effect. The European Union Department on Safety & Sound Risk have a limit set at 140dB, so with the 30db reduction, 160dB becomes 130dB, well below the Safety Sound Risk. In the US the testing standards for suppressors are MIL-STD-1474 for those of you willing to conduct further research. Other benefits of a suppressor are the elimination of muzzle flash and reducing recoil by 20% to 30%. All these benefits not only allow for stealthy operations, but they reduce noise and recoil fatigue, confusion to location of hostile shooter, thereby reducing the risk of Blue on Blue confusion and improved team communication. They can be attached to the patrol rifle with either quick-connect or threaded onto the barrel with the removal of the flash suppressor. Some suppressors are maintenance free, others you have to clean after a specified number of thousands of rounds as per the manufacturer instructions. The size & weight of suppressors vary also from 6oz to 24oz in weight. If you are considering the employment of a suppressor, consider having it permanently attached to the patrol rifle with a routine of scheduled maintenance. Once attached, re-zero the rifle with its new suppressor. The choice of suppressor should be a measured result between noise suppression efficiency, maintenance, durability and cost. But remember this, in today’s world, quality costs, like a good suit it may be costly at the time but it’s the one suit you are still wearing years later. A common misconception is that if you have a suppressor you require sub-sonic ammunition. This is not the case. In fact unless you are considering conducting Black Operations, sub-sonic ammunition would cause you more problems than its worth for a patrol rifle. A word of caution with regard to 5.56mm or .223 ammunition with lead content; due to the metal property of the lead and the heat build up in the barrel and suppressor when employed in full auto, the thermal radiation, affects the ballistic trajectory performance of this calibre causing the rounds to yaw excessively, degrading the suppressor to approx 200 rounds before suppressor failure or replacement.
The potential use of the patrol rifle in a life or death situation brings me to the weapons report and hearing safety issue. Hearing is irreparable, once lost or damaged, it’s lost and damaged forever. With the educated policy makers, and the undercurrent movement from patrol shotgun to patrol rifle for liability and greater engagement distance etc… Remember the saying “The only reason you have a hand gun, is so you can fight your way back to your long gun”. Bringing the Patrol rifle into the Law Enforcement inventory is a good thing, but how many officers carry hearing protection while on patrol, let alone would have time to put on hearing protection during a critical incident. That is the time a suppressed patrol rifle come into its own. I hear some of you saying I would never use it, or for the amount of occasions I have had to deploy a patrol rifle it’s not worth it. All I would remind you is to, take a look at the captured Al Qaida operators training video with the direct targeting of Law Enforcement Officers while on duty (Never Say Never…) In some police departments the financial cost negates the purchase, with the average cost of a suppressor at $780 USD each, you will find it cheaper by researching prices. The cheapest I found was $375 USD, the most expensive was $1350 USD. The larger police departments with full-time specialist teams would not have a problem and have the financial muscle to purchase, but the smaller police departments with part-time specialist teams or, only have the patrol rifle for the supervisor’s vehicle; it would be difficult to justify the expense. This is where the manufacturers could help by possibly offering used, manufacturer-refurbished suppressors at a greatly reduced cost to smaller police departments, or consider other incentives for the smaller police departments.
I mentioned earlier “liability” for a reason, with the constant shadow of legal action against officers who discharge their firearm, it make logical sense that an officer with a patrol rifle is only responsible (Liable) for discharging 1 round at a time (Well aimed shot placement) with the extended engagement area of up to 150 yards, unlike the 12gauge Shotgun with 00 buck with an effective combative distance of 18 yards. Why 18 yard some would ask, simply put the 8-9 pellets discharged from the shotgun spread 1 inch for every yard of travel, and the average human’s centre of mass being 18 inches across. Beyond that the shot pattern keeps spreading and the officer who discharged the 00 buck is accountable for each pellet, in the eyes of the law. Some would argue about patrol rifle ammunition over penetration, but with new law enforcement frangible duty ammunition available on the market, and ammunition testing results carried out by the FBI, Ballistics Research Facility at Quantico, VA, that argument is redundant. Managers please take note; a sign of a good police department is having proactive rather than reactive policy development. (As for the Shotgun lovers reading this article, don’t misunderstand me, the shotgun has its place in the Law Enforcement inventory, as a breaching tool for door entries and deployment of less lethal munitions. Also from my military years great for jungle warfare, and as far as I am concerned, in the dark, there is no other sound in the world to attract people’s attention more, than racking a shotgun, even when it’s not loaded.)
Good article promoting the benefits of suppressors for LEOs from Police magazine. http://www.tacticalmedicine.com/files/policeaug08.pdf
Yeah, that's the stuff! I'm trying to get some outside documentation that illustrates and quantifies what we all already know.
Thanks.
Documented cases from this side of the pond;
http://www.psni.police.uk/hearing_loss_by_former_ruc_officers.pdf
£11,348,466 paid for 515 cases, leaving 1236 still in processing.
Data from September 2008.
Link from November 2008 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/7739435.stm
It appears that many claims are due to improver / missing hearing protection from training, but a large number of suppressors could have been purchased with a fraction of that cost.
Of course you might have comms in the hearing protection, but even still the lower sound pressure level aids in the communication, firing indoors etc.
Having talked to LEO folks here, they usually do not have hearing protection on them or in vehicles etc, this from normal officers, not SWAT etc.
I would say that purchasing 2 suppressors will be cheaper than outfitting the end users with the hearing protection.
My thoughts exactly. If you look at the cost of outfitting each operator with an effective earpro/comm setup, plus a compatible helmet (which we don't have), the cost per officer comes close to, or possibly exceeds, just buying a suppressor for each member of the entry team.
Thanks for the links!
Would these be dedicated suppressed units, or is minimizing POI shift with and without the suppressors a priority?
Depends. I think having them be detachable with minimal shift would maximize range training since we wouldn't have to worry about wearing the units out.
I could be wrong about this; I'm new to the suppressor (and general NFA) game. Are some of the models (Surefire?) durable enough to leave on permanently?
edited: operationally speaking, we'd probably run them suppressed 90% of the time on actual operations.
Depends. I think having them be detachable with minimal shift would maximize range training since we wouldn't have to worry about wearing the units out.
I could be wrong about this; I'm new to the suppressor (and general NFA) game. Are some of the models (Surefire?) durable enough to leave on permanently?
edited: operationally speaking, we'd probably run them suppressed 90% of the time on actual operations.
When talking about assault rifles / SPR type rifles, with barrel lengths of 14.5" and longer, our experience is that the suppressor lifetime is more dependant on the amount of fouling inside, rather than wear or erosion.
I have had similar comments from a few of the top U.S. manufacturers.
There are various cleaning solutions that can be utilized for cleaning centrefire rifle suppressors, for example;
- The 50/50 peroxide / vinegar mix
- Robla SoloMil barrel cleaning agent
- And also in a recent test conducted by a Finnish hunting magazine, they got 10-40g of fouling out of suppressors with few thousand rounds through by using lye in an ultra sound machine.
Best Regards!
Tuukka Jokinen
Ase Utra sound suppressors
Robb Jensen
06-02-10, 07:45
Ways to sell it to the bosses:
1. No/little hearing loss to bystanders, other officers, K9s nearby. A sound suppressor is cheap vs. having to pay early retirement or pay for hearing aids for officers with hearing loss.
2. Less 'noise' to surrounding areas which may freak out citizens.
3. Better comms while shooting = less confusion what's going on.
4. Actually best of all, suppressor will increase the accuracy of the firearm.
5. For those depts admin. who think that suppressors are some Hollywood assasin tools it's utter BS. It's no different than mufflers on vehicles.
A very large local LE dept in NoVA now uses sound suppressors (GemTech G5s) on many of their K9 units carbines. They aren't mounted in the rack in the vehicle but when the officer deploys his M4 he's to mount the G5. Their reasons are to protect the K9s hearing as well as less 'noise' if having to dispatch a wounded animal etc.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.