|
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Overkill? If I needed to get folks to safety when faced with a trained shooter I would want as much armor around me as possible. Seems to me that LCSD's M113 served its purpose well in this incident. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Not one to usually side with the Gov, but over kill? Hell no. You go to a gun fight with the bigget guns you got. The guy was ex military and "Gilson is the owner of ProSolider, a local company “dedicated to enhancing professional warrior’s ability to move, shoot and communicate,” according to information he posed on LinkedIn." Who klnows what they guy had in his gun collection. As far as having a full auto, again see above. Not everyone goes through proper channels to possess a full auto. There are plenty of war bring backs and illegal conversions out there. The biggest sham in that whole thing is that this guy was unable to get the mental help he needed. It soulds like he was a frequent flyer with the local PD. However, with the non existant State mental health system and cuts in the VA, it was probably gonna happen with this guy sooner or later. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Not one to usually side with the Gov, but over kill? Hell no. You go to a gun fight with the bigget guns you got. The guy was ex military and "Gilson is the owner of ProSolider, a local company “dedicated to enhancing professional warrior’s ability to move, shoot and communicate,” according to information he posed on LinkedIn." Who klnows what they guy had in his gun collection. As far as having a full auto, again see above. Not everyone goes through proper channels to possess a full auto. There are plenty of war bring backs and illegal conversions out there. The biggest sham in that whole thing is that this guy was unable to get the mental help he needed. It soulds like he was a frequent flyer with the local PD. However, with the non existant State mental health system and cuts in the VA, it was probably gonna happen with this guy sooner or later. I wouldn't call a .500" aluminum, retired M113 armored... But yes, I woud call it overkill... Since when do city/county departments need to be wasting our tax money on something that an "up-armored" HUMMVEE could handle? Or even an armored bank car? They want ot look intimidating is all & for the sheeple who know no better- it works. Does anyone here know why personell preferred to sit ontop of those M113's surrounded by sandbags rather than inside them while on duty in Vietnam? (scroll down for the answer) Because the armour SUCKED!!!! They were a deathtrap on tracks! A rolling coffin! They got the job done, yes. They had their use, but they sucked for protection. Pathfinder |
|
Quoted:
Ahhh it was bought through drmo program for about 5 bucks to the dept . Exactly. Pathfinder1- "But yes, I woud call it overkill... Since when do city/county departments need to be wasting our tax money on something that an "up-armored" HUMMVEE could handle? Or even an armored bank car?" You dont want them to waste money on it but its ok to spend thousands more on a Hummvee? Which by the way has no where near the carrying capacity. Something tells me you'd be the one bitching when the local PD didnt have one or too small of one when your family, friends, co-workers, or school children, needed evac due to a gunman going off.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Ahhh it was bought through drmo program for about 5 bucks to the dept . Exactly. Pathfinder1- "But yes, I woud call it overkill... Since when do city/county departments need to be wasting our tax money on something that an "up-armored" HUMMVEE could handle? Or even an armored bank car?" You dont want them to waste money on it but its ok to spend thousands more on a Hummvee? Which by the way has no where near the carrying capacity. Something tells me you'd be the one bitching when the local PD didnt have one or too small of one when your family, friends, co-workers, or school children, needed evac due to a gunman going off. A HUMMVEE can be had for $15,000. Not saying that they should've used one, but rather the fact that- since when does any "civil patrol" need a tracked vehical with armor similar to a lawn mower that costs $xxx,xxx.xx from government auction for a "retired military vehical" that can barely be used as air to ground targets for the National Gaurd??? Like I stated earlier... Even these armored bank cars are sufficient & cheaper! How many persons do you think an M113 can hold? I know, do you? And again, their armor sucks!! I would rather have my family "run in zig-zag fashion"! My two year old can run faster than those things move. Pathfinder |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Overkill? If I needed to get folks to safety when faced with a trained shooter I would want as much armor around me as possible. Seems to me that LCSD's M113 served its purpose well in this incident.
You guys got me on that one...If I were in that position, I would want the best available too. I guess it is just a little strange to me to see police in military vehicles. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Overkill? If I needed to get folks to safety when faced with a trained shooter I would want as much armor around me as possible. Seems to me that LCSD's M113 served its purpose well in this incident.
You guys got me on that one...If I were in that position, I would want the best available too. I guess it is just a little strange to me to see police in military vehicles. Then you guys are looking at the wrong equipment, especially against an "experienced shooter". Pathfinder |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Not one to usually side with the Gov, but over kill? Hell no. You go to a gun fight with the bigget guns you got. The guy was ex military and "Gilson is the owner of ProSolider, a local company “dedicated to enhancing professional warrior’s ability to move, shoot and communicate,” according to information he posed on LinkedIn." Who klnows what they guy had in his gun collection. As far as having a full auto, again see above. Not everyone goes through proper channels to possess a full auto. There are plenty of war bring backs and illegal conversions out there. The biggest sham in that whole thing is that this guy was unable to get the mental help he needed. It soulds like he was a frequent flyer with the local PD. However, with the non existant State mental health system and cuts in the VA, it was probably gonna happen with this guy sooner or later. I wouldn't call a .500" aluminum, retired M113 armored... But yes, I woud call it overkill... Since when do city/county departments need to be wasting our tax money on something that an "up-armored" HUMMVEE could handle? Or even an armored bank car? They want ot look intimidating is all & for the sheeple who know no better- it works. Does anyone here know why personell preferred to sit ontop of those M113's surrounded by sandbags rather than inside them while on duty in Vietnam? (scroll down for the answer) Because the armour SUCKED!!!! They were a deathtrap on tracks! A rolling coffin! They got the job done, yes. They had their use, but they sucked for protection. Pathfinder As said before, the M113 LCSD has was obtained through the DRMO program for next to nothing. It was used with great success in this instance so any monies spent on maintenance, fuel, etc., were well-spent IMO. It would be overkill to run the suspect over with the M113. Mounting a M2 on top and blast him out of his house would be overkill. Using an M88 to smash his house and pump in tear gas would be overkill. Using it to get folks out of the line-of-fire is not overkill. The armor on a M113A1, A2 is thin by military standards, but should be sufficient for 99% of LE encounters. I'd rather be in that thing than a Crown Vic if I had to get some family members to safety, or some SWAT team members into a dangerous position. I am intimately familiar with this series of vehicles having been a M577A2 driver for many years. I could probably still pull PMCS blindfolded. TM9-2350-261-10 was my bible. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"after raising a fully automatic M-16 assault rifle at officers," With the relative rarity of legally owned M16's, I doubt the above statement. Maybe I'll call tomorrow to see exactly how they determined it was an M16. +1... Smells fishy... BTW, wtf is with the armored troop carrier? Overkill? Not one to usually side with the Gov, but over kill? Hell no. You go to a gun fight with the bigget guns you got. The guy was ex military and "Gilson is the owner of ProSolider, a local company “dedicated to enhancing professional warrior’s ability to move, shoot and communicate,” according to information he posed on LinkedIn." Who klnows what they guy had in his gun collection. As far as having a full auto, again see above. Not everyone goes through proper channels to possess a full auto. There are plenty of war bring backs and illegal conversions out there. The biggest sham in that whole thing is that this guy was unable to get the mental help he needed. It soulds like he was a frequent flyer with the local PD. However, with the non existant State mental health system and cuts in the VA, it was probably gonna happen with this guy sooner or later. I wouldn't call a .500" aluminum, retired M113 armored... But yes, I woud call it overkill... Since when do city/county departments need to be wasting our tax money on something that an "up-armored" HUMMVEE could handle? Or even an armored bank car? They want ot look intimidating is all & for the sheeple who know no better- it works. Does anyone here know why personell preferred to sit ontop of those M113's surrounded by sandbags rather than inside them while on duty in Vietnam? (scroll down for the answer) Because the armour SUCKED!!!! They were a deathtrap on tracks! A rolling coffin! They got the job done, yes. They had their use, but they sucked for protection. Pathfinder As said before, the M113 LCSD has was obtained through the DRMO program for next to nothing. It was used with great success in this instance so any monies spent on maintenance, fuel, etc., were well-spent IMO. It would be overkill to run the suspect over with the M113. Mounting a M2 on top and blast him out of his house would be overkill. Using an M88 to smash his house and pump in tear gas would be overkill. Using it to get folks out of the line-of-fire is not overkill. The armor on a M113A1, A2 is thin by military standards, but should be sufficient for 99% of LE encounters. I'd rather be in that thing than a Crown Vic if I had to get some family members to safety, or some SWAT team members into a dangerous position. I am intimately familiar with this series of vehicles having been a M577A2 driver for many years. I could probably still pull PMCS blindfolded. TM9-2350-261-10 was my bible. My previous job of 20 years was production of HAWK missile systems & my previous production was the OEM for the drive train for the M113. My superior was the design Engineer for the final drive on the system. Working closely in hand with TACOM & Raytheon for the past 20 some years, along with my military experience as a weapons Sgt gives me "alittle" knowledge in this area. With an experience shooter & the weapons platforms described that he had in posesion, I would rather have something else between me & him. Just my opinion... Pathfinder |
|
Quoted: With an experience shooter & the weapons platforms described that he had in posesion, I would rather have something else between me & him.
Just my opinion... Pathfinder Me too. A Bradley would be nice, but DRMO probably wasn't giving those out the day LVSD picked up their M113. 
BTW I never had a final drive go out on me. Pack, fuel injectors, trannies, fan towers; yes, but the final drives were always rock solid. Thank you!  (Pain in the ass pulling pack on a M577 too, since the 4.2KW generator was mounted over the engine hatch.)
|
|
You guys should see the 8 wheeled monster the Oakland Co. Sheriff has. Good grief, the sucker looks like it could drive OVER that little M113...!
I saw it today at the intersection of Dixie & Telegraph. Wife said "What is THAT?" I replied "The militarization of our police force". /end threadjack |
|
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_tAORGiMftgw/ST3MSdplAVI/AAAAAAAADvI/FvFA2RT1S1s/s400/01+underwater+sherrif.jpg
Is this the vehicle? It looks like something from GPV, a local manufacturer. I don't see the 8x8 on their website, but I've been to one of their facilities and met the owner. I vaguely remember an 8x8 variant being available at the time. They were trying to sell to TACOM, but failed. I think they closed the plant that I visited and mostly got out of the defense business. The one you saw was probably a prototype, but the 6x6 that I went through seemed to be a very capable MRAP-type APC. The GPC 8X8 (If that is what this is) would be comparable to the US Army Stryker. The M113 that is the focus of so many of the posts in this thread looks like an M113A1 to me, with internal fuel tanks. It is a bad angle in the photo, so I am not sure. Two or three single-hole shots with .308 or .30-06 MIGHT be enough to ignite its fuel tanks. I have driven and commanded both the A1 and A2 (external fuel tanks hang off the rear on either side of the ramp) variants. I can verify the product's ability to achieve the 40+ mph for which it is rated. They are an absolute hoot to drive. Having been a commander's M1A1 driver and ALO track (an M113A3 at Fort Hood, but an M113A2 at NTC) commander, I have been involved with a half dozen or so M113 turn-ins in the NTC dust bowl. Those weren't my only jobs in the Army, but they are the only ones that allowed me to experience the M113. Almost every one of those tracks was CONVENIENTLY deadlined for final drives, though they all drove into the turn-in area with no apparent issues. In spite of the issues I had to deal with at NTC, which is notorious for mostly-dead vehicles, I would rate the M113 family as my second favorite military vehicle behind the M1A1 and ahead of the scout variant HMMWV. Since leaving the Army in February 2000, I have worked as a military-automotive engineer, mostly as a contractor to US Army Tank-Automotive Command (TACOM). The M113A1s that were sold to law enforcement agencies, despite their obvious flaws, would still be a great value compared to any Humvee that would be sold to law enforcement. The up-armor variants of the Humvee would PROBABLY not be sold to law enforcement in a similar process. A usable up-armor Humvee would cost much, much more than an M113. When they are taken from service they are virtually unusable, as their design is not sufficient to carry the up-armor packages without accelerated degradation. TACOM has been working to replace the Humvee for years with the JLTV and MRAP programs. The Humvee is widely known to be inadequate for any armor application. |
|
Quoted:
You guys should see the 8 wheeled monster the Oakland Co. Sheriff has. Good grief, the sucker looks like it could drive OVER that little M113...! I saw it today at the intersection of Dixie & Telegraph. Wife said "What is THAT?" I replied "The militarization of our police force". /end threadjack Is there any reason the PD shouldn't have access to armored vehicles? Should they put away their ARs too because that is "militarized"? North Hollywood sound familiar? I don't get why people believe that individuals should be able to own whatever they want but if a Police Department owns it and uses it, its too much.  I get it, to a point, we want to be able to defend ourselves with or without Police assistance. However, what about the police officers? If you were a PO in a shoot out with individuals with armor and ARs/AKs and found out that your department passed on an armored vehicle, flashbangs, and rifles because they looked all scary and military like...how would you feel with your service weapon huddled behind your crown vic?
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys should see the 8 wheeled monster the Oakland Co. Sheriff has. Good grief, the sucker looks like it could drive OVER that little M113...! I saw it today at the intersection of Dixie & Telegraph. Wife said "What is THAT?" I replied "The militarization of our police force". /end threadjack Is there any reason the PD shouldn't have access to armored vehicles? Should they put away their ARs too because that is "militarized"? North Hollywood sound familiar? I don't get why people believe that individuals should be able to own whatever they want but if a Police Department owns it and uses it, its too much. I get it, to a point, we want to be able to defend ourselves with or without Police assistance. However, what about the police officers? If you were a PO in a shoot out with individuals with armor and ARs/AKs and found out that your department passed on an armored vehicle, flashbangs, and rifles because they looked all scary and military like...how would you feel with your service weapon huddled behind your crown vic?
Nevermind... You missed it. I'll give you a clue- Nobody said they shouldn't have armor, just the type of vehical??? Comeon' tracked?? Next they will have M1's Pathfinder |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys should see the 8 wheeled monster the Oakland Co. Sheriff has. Good grief, the sucker looks like it could drive OVER that little M113...! I saw it today at the intersection of Dixie & Telegraph. Wife said "What is THAT?" I replied "The militarization of our police force". /end threadjack Is there any reason the PD shouldn't have access to armored vehicles? Should they put away their ARs too because that is "militarized"? North Hollywood sound familiar? I don't get why people believe that individuals should be able to own whatever they want but if a Police Department owns it and uses it, its too much. I get it, to a point, we want to be able to defend ourselves with or without Police assistance. However, what about the police officers? If you were a PO in a shoot out with individuals with armor and ARs/AKs and found out that your department passed on an armored vehicle, flashbangs, and rifles because they looked all scary and military like...how would you feel with your service weapon huddled behind your crown vic?
I want an M1. Id park that shit out front of my house. Nevermind... You missed it. I'll give you a clue- Nobody said they shouldn't have armor, just the type of vehical??? Comeon' tracked?? Next they will have M1's Pathfinder |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You guys should see the 8 wheeled monster the Oakland Co. Sheriff has. Good grief, the sucker looks like it could drive OVER that little M113...! I saw it today at the intersection of Dixie & Telegraph. Wife said "What is THAT?" I replied "The militarization of our police force". /end threadjack Is there any reason the PD shouldn't have access to armored vehicles? Should they put away their ARs too because that is "militarized"? North Hollywood sound familiar? I don't get why people believe that individuals should be able to own whatever they want but if a Police Department owns it and uses it, its too much. I get it, to a point, we want to be able to defend ourselves with or without Police assistance. However, what about the police officers? If you were a PO in a shoot out with individuals with armor and ARs/AKs and found out that your department passed on an armored vehicle, flashbangs, and rifles because they looked all scary and military like...how would you feel with your service weapon huddled behind your crown vic?
Nevermind... You missed it. I'll give you a clue- Nobody said they shouldn't have armor, just the type of vehical??? Comeon' tracked?? Next they will have M1's Pathfinder I want an M1. Id park that shit out front of my house. |