Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Never seen such stupidity- swat exercise in richland

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    E TN
    Posts
    165

    Never seen such stupidity- swat exercise in richland

    Enough stupidity to fill a universe...

    http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/102931174.html

    "The SWAT team used an explosive device to get in"

    No, they OPENED THE DOOR AND WALKED IN, I saw it.

    What I saw was unforgiveably stupid. I saw about 10 of them bunched up at the front door and along the picture window like they were Trick or Treating, and they were standing in front of a large window, presenting themselves as sitting ducks for any pretend attacker inside with either a fast finger or machine gun. if there had been a bad guy inside who was trained with an automatic weapon, they could all have gotten killed or injured where they stood and not have seen it coming.

    I saw them carrying high powered ASSAULT RIFLES in a CROWDED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS FROM A DAYCARE AT A CHURCH. One of those AR 15 rounds (if they actually had fired any) would go through SEVERAL houses and possibly kill an innocent Citizen. One could EASILY reach down town. or Amon Park from there.

    Then they had to set off explosives in the SAME CROWDED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD? Door breachers my eye, there are 12 gauge shotgun loads for that, and I wouldnt have heard them THAT loud about a quarter mile away. Whatever they used sounded more like a grenade than a door breacher cartridge. It was so loud that I was on the edge of feeling the concussion from that distance. It resonated the walls, but I didnt feel the shock.

    Here's the full story along with a description of this stupidity in detail:

    http://second-amendment.tripod.com/d2a

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Capn Camo View Post
    Enough stupidity to fill a universe...

    http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/102931174.html



    One of those AR 15 rounds (if they actually had fired any) would go through SEVERAL houses and possibly kill an innocent Citizen. One could EASILY reach down town. or Amon Park from there.

    Here's the full story along with a description of this stupidity in detail:

    http://second-amendment.tripod.com/d2a
    Really? Hmmm I am going to need a cite for that one....

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Washington, USA
    Posts
    133
    Regardless of their tactical errors or anything else, I take issue with the terminology you've used in this post, the comment you posted on the news article, and your little blog. This was a training exercise, in a suburban environment. Any ammunition used was likely blank cartridges or simunition. Realistically, there was probably little danger to anyone in the area. Further, assault rifles are not real. There is no singular, solid definition for what makes an assault rifle, and by and large, the term is simply a media buzz-word thrown around to describe nearly every military pattern semiautomatic rifle. It is in the best interests of every responsible gun owner or educated pro-rights person to do their best to strike that term from the collective lexicon as to try and reduce the spread of misinformation by those who would rather we all live in a place where citizens have no right to life/self defense.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Maybe an assault rifle has a round that can go through several houses.....

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Washington, USA
    Posts
    133
    I've never seen that in any of the many varying definitions I've seen before, but that very well could be.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over run with mud(s)
    Posts
    791
    I am not too knowledgeable on the whole ballistics coefficients and whatever have you not. However I do know that when I was in Boot Camp we were specifically instructed that a "properly fired" m16 bullet can travel UP to a mile.

    However I am pretty sure it would have to be something like a "hook shot" to go that far...
    "And shepherds we shall be, for Thee, my Lord, for Thee.
    Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command.
    So we shall flow a river forth to Thee and teeming with souls shall it ever be.
    E nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti."


    "If the rest of the world says: 'War,' I can only say: 'Very well. I do not want war, but no one, however peaceable, can live in peace if his neighbor intends to force a quarrel.'" - Adolf Hitler...

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    N47º 12’ x W122º 10’
    Posts
    1,762
    What a horribly written article over at KEPR. "Typically the power is three-times the strength then what they use in training." Are you kidding me? Do they have the KEPR night janitor writing this stuff?

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines
    Posts
    30
    After traveling through an exterior wall (one piece of siding, exterior sheathing, and sheet rock), then three interior walls (six pieces of sheet rock), then another exterior wall (and magically not hitting anything else in the house), a .223 round has dumped so much energy that it would bounce off the next house - that is if it even goes through the first house. Pretty sure the bullet would fragment after the first exterior wall.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bellingham, Washington, USA
    Posts
    133
    Quote Originally Posted by devildoc5 View Post
    I am not too knowledgeable on the whole ballistics coefficients and whatever have you not. However I do know that when I was in Boot Camp we were specifically instructed that a "properly fired" m16 bullet can travel UP to a mile.

    However I am pretty sure it would have to be something like a "hook shot" to go that far...
    I'm sure it could travel farther if it's flight were uninterrupted and it was fired at an optimum angle as to maximize flight time/distance. I've seen it published, that the maximum range is better than two miles; however, it would likely be ineffective upon the target, as the published maximum effective range for the typical AR15/M16 rifle that I have seen is about 600 yards. I've got boxes of .22LR that say that thee projectiles can travel as far as one mile, but note that the maximum effective range is about 300 yards.

  10. #10
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812
    Quote Originally Posted by k.rollin View Post
    Regardless of their tactical errors or anything else, I take issue with the terminology you've used in this post, the comment you posted on the news article, and your little blog. This was a training exercise, in a suburban environment. Any ammunition used was likely blank cartridges or simunition. Realistically, there was probably little danger to anyone in the area. Further, assault rifles are not real. There is no singular, solid definition for what makes an assault rifle, and by and large, the term is simply a media buzz-word thrown around to describe nearly every military pattern semiautomatic rifle. It is in the best interests of every responsible gun owner or educated pro-rights person to do their best to strike that term from the collective lexicon as to try and reduce the spread of misinformation by those who would rather we all live in a place where citizens have no right to life/self defense.
    Actually the term "asault rifle" is perfectly legitimate and pretty well defined. An assault rifle is a select-fire, low- or medium-powered rifle with a detachable magazine. They are, be definition, NOT "high-powered", and being machine guns, are not generally legal in WA (except of course for police).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

    What you're thinking of is the term "assault weapon," which actually IS a complete ******** madeup term used by antis to demonize semiautomatic sporting rifles, normal-capacity handguns, and whatever else they're out to get today. They like to use the term because assault weapon sounds an awful lot like assault rifle, sounds even worse in fact, and even fools some in-the-know folks.

    I would actually love to own an assault rifle, but being a law-abiding citizen of WA, I can't, so I have to settle for semiautomatic sporting rifles that vaguely resemble such. On second though, I'm not so sure about that. Feeding a select-fire rifle would get very expensive very quickly, and probably more fun that is legally allowed.

    Here's a good guide to "assault weapons:"

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	journalistguide.jpg 
Views:	67 
Size:	41.0 KB 
ID:	3926
    Last edited by Metalhead47; 09-15-2010 at 07:36 AM.
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Winlock, , USA
    Posts
    501
    My whole thing with assault rifles, or any full auto weapon, crew served or otherwise is that I am too old and too cheap to hump all that ammo....

    I had the opportunity to shoot a bunch of full auto stuff when you tax payers paid the bill, thank you, very much, and it was a lot of fun. But, heck, I can't afford that much .50 ball ammo...

  12. #12
    Regular Member MAndrew's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Olympia, WA, USA
    Posts
    26
    [QUOTE=Metalhead47;1354653]
    ...

    Here's a good guide to "assault weapons:"
    /QUOTE]

    Ah ha! So that's what the media uses to find out what firearms are used in an incident.

  13. #13
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by Capn Camo View Post
    One of those AR 15 rounds (if they actually had fired any) would go through SEVERAL houses and possibly kill an innocent Citizen. One could EASILY reach down town. or Amon Park from there.
    Here is a report that "cries bull$h!t" on the above statement.

    http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html

    "The relatively slow speed and heavy weight of handgun bullets make them a poor choice for limiting interior wall penetration, which is why professional door-kicker types have abandoned pistol-caliber submachineguns in favor of .223 carbines.
    Shotguns may be the most powerful repeating shoulder-fired gun available, but when stoked with 00 buckshot they are certainly not a low-penetration option. In fact, the way the pellets spread out after passing through intermediate barriers makes the safety of anyone or anything within three rooms of a shotgun blast highly dubious.



    Consider that exterior wall sections of most houses consist of siding, an OSB underlayment, insulation, and a layer of drywall, it is even doubtful that a .223 round would make it through intact. Add to that an interior wall section consisting of 2 sheets of drywall (one on each side of the studs) your claim that one of their shots would make it through several homes is merely the product of an ill-informed mind.

    As for the use of "breaching explosives" you'd be surprised how confined their explosion is. They are designed to be very "focused". They aren't like the satchel charges you see in the war movies that take the whole front of the house off.
    Last edited by amlevin; 09-15-2010 at 11:04 AM.

  14. #14
    Regular Member JSlack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Eastern Warshingtun
    Posts
    54
    I hate to say this, but you folks are poorly mis informed when it comes to penetration of a .223 round.

    has no one here seen this website?

    http://www.theboxotruth.com

    specifically this article...

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

    shows a .223 round penetrating 12 sheets of sheet rock.

    that is 6 interior walls.

    read the article, and more on that site. some very informative stuff.
    Last edited by JSlack; 09-15-2010 at 11:37 AM.

  15. #15
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack View Post
    I hate to say this, but you folks are poorly mis informed when it comes to penetration of a .223 round.

    has no one here seen this website?

    http://www.theboxotruth.com

    specifically this article...

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

    shows a .223 round penetrating 12 sheets of sheet rock.

    that is 6 interior walls.

    read the article, and more on that site. some very informative stuff.
    And with what ammo? M-193 Ball? M-885 with the SS-109 type projectile? The "frangible round that went through the 12 sheets of drywall is not commonly used by law agencies. It will only "fall apart" when it hits something harder than it, namely metal structures. Frangibles were touted for use by air marshals because it was common thought that any shot fired in an airplane that punctured the pressure "hull" would cause all the passengers to be sucked out through the 3/8" hole (big grin here). They also work pretty good when shooting steel targets that aren't made out of 500 brinell steel.

    Police issue ammo is designed to LIMIT this type of problem is is often of the Hornady TAP or Federal Tactical ammo.
    The .223 round has limited mass (55 grains vs 100 + for handgun and large-bore rifle rounds), tends to tumble when it hits anything (thus limiting it's penetration and distance), and fragments easily (due to velocity).

    All this aside, how many cases does anyone KNOW of, or have been reported, where a .223 round was fired by a police officer in a forced entry situation that went on through the building and was even found, much less injured/killed anyone.

  16. #16
    Regular Member jt59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central South Sound
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by JSlack View Post
    I hate to say this, but you folks are poorly mis informed when it comes to penetration of a .223 round.

    has no one here seen this website?

    http://www.theboxotruth.com

    specifically this article...

    http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot1.htm

    shows a .223 round penetrating 12 sheets of sheet rock.

    that is 6 interior walls.

    read the article, and more on that site. some very informative stuff.
    Good stuff, that...! It certainly add's perspective to knowing your back stops at close range...here is another fairly non-scientific example. What I found most interesting about this test wasn't the equal gravity bit, but is that the caliber (.45 auto and same as mine), and bullet travel distance, with the gun at level and 36 inches off the ground. This is lower than normal shooting stance I know, but the thing that blew me away (figuratively speaking), is that the round expired at a little over 100 yards....and recognizing that while this can be changed with aim angle, I would have thought the "level" bullet flight would be much further.



    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUEIwPf9BpA
    Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the grey twilight that knows not victory nor defeat....Teddy Roosevelt

  17. #17
    Regular Member Fallschirmjäger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Posts
    3,915
    Why, hello there, Mr Tempest, my name's Teapot. Come in and make yourself comfortable.




    1) Is it just me or did the original poster kinda ... mmm... neglect... to mention any weapon discharge? Kinda hard to send deadly 5.56 rounds through innocent bodies if there aren't any discharged, isn't it?

    2) How far live 5.56 rounds can penetrate is immaterial if the team in question was using blanks.

    3) Does the original poster expect us to believe that a department
    a) is so negligent as to use live ammunition on what he clearly illustrates to be a training exercise and futher
    b) is going to expose itself to liability by forgoing the use of what is commonly called a 'shoot house' which will contain live ammunition and
    c) is going to do so in a residential neighborhood?

    4) Poster is amazed that he saw no one posed to go through the back door. Umm, didn't he just get finished saying that a 5.56 round will go through an entire house or houses?? And now he wants someone to enter from the very same direction all those evil assault rifles are going to be pointed???
    In general military theory, it's considered very impolite to fire at bad guys who are standing directly between you and the other guys who are on your side. That's why ambushes aren't established on both sides of a road; shooting your own side is frowned upon.

    If the team stacked itself in front of a bay window, it strikes me that it MAY be because the emphasis was on another part of the exercise, such as "...this is the way we're going to go through a door. Since the emphasis is on doorway entries, just IMAGINE the window isn't really there, just like we're IMAGINING that this is a real callout..." Maybe that would explain why they obeyed speed limit signs on the way to the exercise too, ..... ya think?

    If the team just 'walked in the door', it strikes me that it could possibly be because the use of a REAL breaching charge could create a potential danger to the citizenry, and so the department IMAGINED using a real device by setting off a small explosive in a safe/secured location. I remember a class dealing with booby-trapped devices once and tripping the explosive. Guess what? the 'explosion' didn't take place beneath Mr Booby-trap, it occurred several yards away in a safe location and the noise of the explosion was the behavioral reward I got for blowing up myself and my teammates.
    Setting off a simulated explosion in a controlled environment rather than actually breaching a door where you Cannot Control where debris goes doesn't strike me as at all irresponsible, rather the opposite.




    There's a huge amount of FAIL, but it's not on the department's side.
    Last edited by Fallschirmjäger; 09-15-2010 at 01:21 PM.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tacoma, WA, ,
    Posts
    886
    So you're mad because there was an explosion to breach the door that could have hurt people in the neighborhood, but there were a dozen cops standing only a few feet from the device when it went off, and none of them were hurt.

    Sounds like this isn't the first time they've done this....

  19. #19
    Regular Member Stretch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Pasco, WA, ,
    Posts
    489
    Congrats to the OP for watching a training exercise. I recall when I trained in, oh all aspects of my life, we took various segments of a whole and broke them into smaller modules to learn. Since this house was set to be destroyed, maybe you were witnessing a fraction of the overall end result that RPD was looking to accomplish under a real scenario. Maybe the trainers had identified some areas of "needed improvement" and found that this home met their needs? Did you witness an entire full scale entry? I would seriously doubt that.

    Just as a side note, a few weeks ago in Pasco, there was a MWAG that the SWAT was called to. It was in a densely populated area. Guess what the police did? They evacuated the citizens from their homes that were in immediate danger of, oh let's see, explosives, stray rounds, etc.

    Your blog is a testament to your fear and hatred of the police. Do you expect a SWAT unit to enter into a building with their underwear and slippers only? Why the hatred? Why the names?

    I say good job RPD for using a house slated for destruction to train in. It wasn't a complete waste of an abandoned house. To the OP....get real

  20. #20
    Regular Member Johnny Law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Puget Sound, ,
    Posts
    462
    [QUOTE=Capn Camo;1354603]Enough stupidity to fill a universe...

    http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/102931174.html

    "The SWAT team used an explosive device to get in"

    No, they OPENED THE DOOR AND WALKED IN, I saw it.

    What I saw was unforgiveably stupid. I saw about 10 of them bunched up at the front door and along the picture window like they were Trick or Treating, and they were standing in front of a large window, presenting themselves as sitting ducks for any pretend attacker inside with either a fast finger or machine gun. if there had been a bad guy inside who was trained with an automatic weapon, they could all have gotten killed or injured where they stood and not have seen it coming.




    It sounds like your camo panties got all bunched up for nothing, Capn Camo. This is STANDARD training, nothing odd here. If you took the time to research entry, breaching, and SWAT tactics, you would find that this is typical. Det cord or shaped charges are commonly used to knock down a door. As are BLANKS in an urban TRAINING exercise. Flashbangs are commonly used as well. Remember it was training.......the window you made a fuss about was obviously being ignored, and was likely considered a wall for TRAINING purposes. Abandoned houses and buildings are used for this all the time.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •