M'boro police dept. gets mine resistant, armored military truck from DOD.

[DaveTN]

 

 The vehicle is capable of providing ballistic protection for SOU officers during transport, deployment and tactical operations where hostile, life-threatening gunfire from an armed suspect poses a danger to officers or innocent citizens.

 

So they are trying to protect first responders from gun fire. I don’t see a problem with that. I have never faced gun fire in a foreign country, but I have on the streets of our country. It’s not friendly fire and it will kill you just as dead as an enemy combatant firing it. Murfreesboro PD gets a Special Ops vehicle that I have already paid for and I don’t have to pay for a new one…. Win.

[Sam1]

Hmm ...

It almost makes you wonder if the DOD over-purchased on purpose, so they would have extra to redistribute to local agencies and it would look like a "mistake."

:tinfoil: :tinfoil:

Highly unlikely, I would do two thing, track the contracts back and see who is a stakeholder in the deals, and that they underestimated the will of the soldiers to stay alive by completely avoiding situations that would've got them killed.

[diablo982]

I like to keep an open mind about any topic, but have a hard time seeing how these could be "misused". This armored vehicle is not an offensive weapon. If the story was about every cop in Murfreesboro getting an M-203 grenade launcher for their patrol rifle, I would understand the concern. As it stands now, the only issue I see are the associated costs which appear to be minimal.

[Sam1]

My thoughts on the 203's, armored vehicles or whatever else kind of military gear the police are getting:

 

We as people in general tend to stick with the things we know.  A large number of LEO's are prior military, they know gear XYZ works, so they stick with it.  There's no big conspiracy to militarize the police forces.

 

As far as getting 50 bmg sniper rifles or grenade launchers, there are always people who love to tinker with things (as every one of us on here do), and some things like that Barrett rifle are out of the reach of most of us, so why not try and justify it at work to get to play with it?  Happens all the time at my work place except with things not associated to firearms, I'm sure the police departments are no different - some LEO's are happy with a side arm and handcuffs and the next one wants an AR15, shotgun, taser, supercharged sports car with ballistics glass and satcom systems.

 

It's that simple.

[RichardR]

No worries it's for our own good, everyone can go back to sleep.

[Guest semiautots]

On another topic, I just bought a Barrett M82A1.  Never know where you'll need a gun like that . . .

[TMF]

On another topic, I just bought a Barrett M82A1. Never know where you'll need a gun like that . . .

It won't penetrate the armor of that vehicle.

[c.a.willard]

Plenty of weaknesses in the vehicle to exploit without the need to try to penetrate the armor.  As TMF mentioned earlier fire is the most cost effective means.  Tons of ways to mobility kill this vehicle. 

 

The city covering the maintenance is still probably cheaper than buying even the lowest cost armored vehicle new.  I dont understand peoples major issue with this.  The truck offers some good capabilities, misuse may be a possibility but not a likely one.  I would much rather see the vehicle go to a local LE agency than be scrapped or pay to ship it off shore to some random country that well probably end up fighting later. 

[Hershmeister]

Wilson county sheriff dpt recently got one of these as well

[Guest semiautots]

It won't penetrate the armor of that vehicle.

 

After serving as an Armor officer in the U.S. Army, I can tell you a well placed 7.62 AP can take out a tank.  A .50 API can easily penetrate an engine block, rendering said vehicle worthless.  Then, no ballistic shield extant will protect.

 

Just sayin'.  I love our local police officers.  DHS is becoming a homegrown army, and the civilians need to possess the means to stop it if tyranny raises it's ugly head.

[TMF]

After serving as an Armor officer in the U.S. Army, I can tell you a well placed 7.62 AP can take out a tank. A .50 API can easily penetrate an engine block, rendering said vehicle worthless. Then, no ballistic shield extant will protect.

Just sayin'. I love our local police officers. DHS is becoming a homegrown army, and the civilians need to possess the means to stop it if tyranny raises it's ugly head.

Brother, I have shot every type of armor with just about every type of round you can imagine. Ball .50 ain't makin it through that armor. Maybe a SLAP round, but that is about it, and that is even questionable.

[c.a.willard]

I think he was more talking about mobility killing the vehicle.  The engine block area on the caymen isnt armored so a wlll placed shot should damage the engine block and mobility kill the vehicle.

[TMF]

I think he was more talking about mobility killing the vehicle. The engine block area on the caymen isnt armored so a wlll placed shot should damage the engine block and mobility kill the vehicle.

Well there are about a thousand way to mobility kill those things. I naturally assumed a .50 was in anti-armor territory as opposed to stopping the engine, so that is why I made the assumption. If I was in the market to arm up for this supposed take over by FEMA and lizard people, I wouldn't be wasting 5k on a rifle to defeat something that I could otherwise defeat with $1.50 of materials and a little ingenuity. Hadj comes up with new ways to take these out all the time, sometimes never involving explosives or any other weaponry.

[Johnny Rotten]

After serving as an Armor officer in the U.S. Army, I can tell you a well placed 7.62 AP can take out a tank.  A .50 API can easily penetrate an engine block, rendering said vehicle worthless.  Then, no ballistic shield extant will protect.

 

Just sayin'.  I love our local police officers.  DHS is becoming a homegrown army, and the civilians need to possess the means to stop it if tyranny raises it's ugly head.

I think that's been tried before, Waco TX, the government took it to the next level. 

I also have a 82A1 while I firmly believe 10 rounds of API will penetrate the front windshield of a MRAP and bounce around inside I defiantly have no death wish. 

[Guest semiautots]

I think that's been tried before, Waco TX, the government took it to the next level. 

I also have a 82A1 while I firmly believe 10 rounds of API will penetrate the front windshield of a MRAP and bounce around inside I defiantly have no death wish. 

 

If it comes to fruition, it is better have and not need, than to need and not have.  Keeping others 1500 yards away from you is a good thing in certain situations.