High Exposure

For the outer belt I like the ATS Warbelt: http://www.atstacticalgear.com/cgi/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=ST-13040 And the Blue Force Gear SOC-C Belt: http://www.blueforcegear.com/soc-c-modular-padded-belt-system/ For the inner belt I currently use the: First Spear Assaulters Gun Belt: http://www.blueforcegear.com/soc-c-low-profile-suspenders/ I used to use the Eagle Industries Duty Belt: http://www.eagleindustries.com/products/detail.aspx?id=102 I also like to use these: BFG SOC-C suspenders: http://www.blueforcegear.com/soc-c-low-profile-suspenders/ I like the ATS belt as it is comfortable, stable, and has an open bottom to mount your holster directly to the belt. ETA: If you make it to the match on Sunday in Old Bridge you can check out my set up. The Brokos belt is nice but it limits the positions and lacks the adjustability that you can use for certain things.

Ooooooooooooh..... Somebody is a shill for FN or really has their ego wrapped up in this crappy round... They came all the way to this forum, registered as a user, and posted 3 whole posts of "cut and paste" to tell us we are wrong and guys I know are liars. 5.7x28 has been around for a quarter of a century. If it was so great, why is it not in the holster of every SOF soldier and Cop out there? I know, because it sucks worse than all the other defensive caliber handgun rounds do at stopping threats, that's why. ETA- Micromag, that is some funny stuff! Well done

Where is the violation? Are you referring to the Officer aiming in on a possible threat from an unsecured location while searching for a terrorist scumbag? (I am assuming that you do not believe that the Boston bombing and search was a drill to accustom LEO and residents for the NWO) A photo captures 1/100th of an instant in time. What happened the instant before? What happened the instant after? Was there motion in a threat area that drew his attention? When alerted the Officer perhaps attempted to ID the unknown? Maybe the next instant, once the unknown was deemed not a threat the Officer stoped overi g the area that could hide a terrorist? Could the officer see clearly through the glass, from bright sunlight to dark interior, well enough to ID the person on the window and the object they may be holding? The pointing of a firearm at a suspected danger area by a LEO is considered "Constructive Force". It is on par with giving commands such as "Show me your hands" or "Don't move". It is the lowest Use of Force there is and has been such or decades. As long as as it is "reasonable" - and covering an unknown in a danger area while searching for a terrorist that has just shot it out with police and detonated explosives is most assuredly "reasonable" and is 100% in policy.

Like Cliff said, You are good to go with mil-spec receiver extension. Good choice vs. the commercial as the mil-spec is intrinsically stronger.

PM Medic2264. He has a bunch that he is selling. AR500 (rifle rated) cut on a water jet.

Fanboy, thank you I appreciate it. I am not saying that all cops are perfect, I am not saying that all cops are stalwart examples of what a cop should be. I'm not even saying all cops are not criminals. Police officers are chosen for the ranks of the human race, the same shortcomings as everyone else, The same ratio of assholes to decent people, the same ratio of nutjobs to normal. And some of them are going to slip through the cracks of the hiring process. That's the case for any profession out there and is nothing anyone can do to change it. I stick up for cops that I don't know because I want to believe that the people who do this job do it for the right reasons and do it the right way. I know there are some bad apples out there, but on the whole they are decent people. My problem is the attempt to deny an entire profession of some of the necessary equipment to properly do business because of unfounded fear based on an intimidating appearance or a few isolated instances where the line was crossed or what some believe is irresponsible spending. It is shortsighted, fear mongering, and a mistake. Note that I am not saying that cop should be SWAT trained, should be wearing helmets and plate carriers and carrying rifles 24/7, but if a job requires it, if a call type calls for it, the equipment should be available to the officers to use appropriately. Equipment and tactics to safely and efficiently accomplish a task should not be rationed based on their appearance and the belief that they instill fear in the residents you serve. If a job requires an armored vehicle to safely remove hostages from an area or to approach a crisis sight without being shot then it should be available for officers to use. If officers have a standoff with an armed subject they should have long guns, they should have armor, they should have communications and uniforms that are applicable to the job. They should also accountable and have the standards, professionalism. They should be held to a higher standard to use the equipment correctly. And if they don't, those that abused the trust they were given should be nailed to the wall. But the rest, the one to do the right thing, shouldn't be deprived because of the actions of a few. That's no different than saying no one should have an AR because a mad man walked into a school in CT, or a movie theater in CO, or a Pathmark in Old Bridge, NJ and shot the place up. Cops aren't supposed to be the bad guys, they are not supposed to violate your rights, or take the law into their own hands, or scare the residents they serve. And for the most part, they don't. How many cops in how many Departments are in United States? With all the men and women doing this job across the country every minute of every day, hearing in the "news" (Because yeah, they never get it wrong, they never have an agenda) about the few times officers made mistakes does not make a pandemic. It just means that somebody messed up. It's not evidence of the New World order, it's not a training exercise for cops to invade your neighborhoods.

It is good that most people don't have to interact with Police. That means I am doing my job. That means they are having happy good lives. I don't get to see people on their best days. I don't get called to share in good news or attend a birthday celebration. We aren't raiding homes everyday, or shooting people in the streets or interrogations of residents. When I smile and wave as I drive by or stop and talk to kids playing nobody cares what I am wearing (usually a Class B/BDU uniform). I have never heard anyone I have interacted with on any level - victim or actor - say the the thigh pockets on my pants make me look scary or my sunglasses are intimidating. Military types out of control? Raid a village? Where are these Mei Lei Cops? Where are these out of control military looking peace officers? Where are these atrocities these affronts to the Constitution happening if they are so prevelant? They aren't.

Actually it doesn't really describe anyone I work with or know in the profession. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it means that when it does tere is a articulable and legitimate reason. And so now basic safety tactics should be violated because every time we blade our gun side away from someone we don't know we are militarized? I shouldn't wear Oakley's now? WTF seriously you have a problem with my sunglasses? Gimme a break Vlad. Again, there are people out there that want to kill us for no reason then we wear blue to work and may send them to prison if we catch them. We do certain things a certain way for a certain reason. The military doesn't do that stuff, they would just shoot you if you are a threat. So, where are all these door kicking K9 searches occurring? Where are these Cops wearing SWAT gear on a shoplifting calls? I don't see them. By the way - Appropriate armor for the threat level and a long gun does not make an "Elite" cop. It makes a Cop that can respond to calls appropriately with a chance of getting the job done correctly with the least amount of injury to all parties involved. "Just because something works or not works doesn't make it OK" - really? So we should do what? The wrong thing, the thing that is more dangerous, more complicated, more expensive, just to be different? That is ludacris...

The fun gun may make an appearance Thinking of bringing a Rimfire Open pistol instead....

We can't always be the friendly neighborhood Officer to everyone. If there is a victim that we are there to help we aren't Officer Friendly to the actor. Officer respectful and Officer Professional but not always Officer friendly. However, regardless if I am on patrol in a Class B Uniform, a barricaded person job in SWAT gear, or in court in a class A uniform, I can always be respectful, I can always so my job, be courteous to residents, compassionate to victims and ruthless to criminals. That has nothing to do with how I look. That has to do with character not appearances. Looks aren't all there is to perception. The scumbags shouldn't think I am Officer friendly. Do you think the guy I just wrote a ticket to for doing 50 in a 25 thinks I'm a friendly neighborhood officer because I am wearing an 8- point hat? You think the guy I just locked up for touching his stepson thinks I'm Officer Friendly because my duty belt is leather basket weave? If we are thought of as the good guys, or the bad guys, is subjective to who we are dealing with. If I go to little kids house and take a report for his stolen bike you think he cares if I am dresses in a BDU or a class A dress uniform? Does the store owner that calls us because he was robbed care if I'm carrying revolver or semi auto or a hip holster or a thigh rig? Where are all these Cops I battle-rattle? I don't see them on patrol, being SRO, enforcing traffic, teaching DARE, taking reports, going to medical calls. I see the gear come out when responding to a shots fired call, or a man with gun call - you know when it is appropriate. Not on a traffic stop or a welfare check. You know something funny, the only people so far that I have met that shout "the Police are becoming Militarized" are my fellow gun owners. The people I have the most in common with politically and idealistically are the ones that fear the worst from me and trust me to do what's right the least.

Vlad, you are supportive and that wasn't addressed at you directly. Your post just covered a lot of the discussion in one neat package so I used yours as a template for my response. I do think it was unfair to use a photos of something you are OK with to make a point about an issue you aren't OK with, but that is really neither here or there. I still have a hard time with your "it looks like" argument as well as the idea that we shouldn't use what works because the military does it that way. I said it earlier but I will say it again - at he end of the conventional war and the start of te COIN war the military adopted tactics that are used by Police and SWAT, not the other way around. Arrest, containment, interviewing and evidence collection - So are the military "LEO-ized" or "SWATerized" now? I don't want to be Capt America. I do want to do my job right, help people, and go see my wife an kid when my 12 is up. I want to start and end my shift with the same guys. That doesn't mean I will trame your rights or treat residets like an enemy combatant. That means I want gear that will give me a chance. The right tools for the right job. I don't want a SMAW for a car stop, but having a rifle on a gun call is nice. So militarization comes down to fiscal responsibility now? I am confused. The DRMO program gives rifles and equipment to PDs for free By the way, everything except the rifle and shotgun I am issues inlaid for myself. The PC, the continuing training, all of it - out of my pocket. If I know something works, is legal, and constitutional why can't I use it? Why do I have to reinvent the wheel? You bring up cops in the '60s, it was the Wild West to be a Cop in the 60's. Old timers refer to it as "the good old days". If I did 1/4 of the stuff that those guys did I would lose my job or be in jail. You want that back? You don't think that if they knew then what we know now the Cops wouldn't have the similar gear? Is a disparity in equipment all that would take to make you think Cops were not militarized? There are tactics and gear that work for certain things and there is tactics and gear that doesn't work. If I have to make entry to rescue a hostage in NJ or a soldier has to do it in Afghanistan the same gear and the same tactics apply. That isn't militarization - that is efficiency, that is smart, that is responsible. Sure it could work, I know plenty of non-cops that could capably handle parts of active shooter response.But first a few issues that need to be planned for: Where would you respond from? How would you be notified that you are needed? How much time to you actually spend in the school/mall/possible scene of violence where we can rely on you instead of Police to address the issue? What shift would you work and what days are you available? If you get hurt or killed what are the repercussions? How do we keep the armed good guys from shooting other armed good guys responding to the scene? How do you link up with the armed good guys or are you planning on addressing any problems alone? How will you communicate with follow on assets (EMS, EOD, CSI) that may be needed? Will you be conducting the HR portion of this incident as well if the situation evolves that far? Or will you just stop and form a perimeter? Do you believe it takes special training to provide this service? Follow up - If so will you pay for your own training ammo and gear? If not, who will? If you are trained, equipped, and ready, who else would you trust besides yourself to handle these incidents? Or is a CCW enough of a certification? Who processes the crime scene, evidence, and witnesses? Who makes notifications to families and talks to the press? If you blow it (and actually even if you do it right) who handles your lawsuit for you? Or do you have insurance?

So only urban areas have violent crime? So whats that 20k residents a squre mile before rifles aren't an aspect of militarization? Good to know, I will turn in my armor and gun because I apparantly don't need it in my little town. I will let the scumbags that come through town from the neighboring City that they can't do anything that would require any tactical response so we don't have residents think we are militarized Only PDs with more than 100 cops have the need to respond to a gun call with a long gun? So, when the bad guy has a long gun I should handle it with a pistol and soft armor, even though rifles and plates are indicated an available, because I work in a small town and don't want to scare you? Only City Cops need to respond to violent crime? Not Cops in small towns like Sandy Hook, CT, Aurora CO, Old Bridge NJ, Nickle Mines PA, Oak Creek WI (there are dozens more but I think you get the idea? It's OK if NYPD has the gear but if Spottswood does is militarization? I keep a PC in my cruiser (personal purchase) Along with an SBR 870 and a Colt R0933 (Dept. issued). If something happens I will be prepared to handle it. If not it stays in the cruiser. That is the threat assessment for my area. If I worked someplace where rifle threats were a priority, I would damn well wear a PC all the time. Construction workers wear hard hats, Doctors wear rubber gloves, you have life jackets on a boat - it is all safety equipment to address the rarely occurring but all too real real dangers of A job you do. Why shouldn't Cops have the tools to address the dangers they are expected to face? Because it is scary to you? Because you think it looks inappropriate? As far as the Boston Photo? How should they have responded to a terrorist attack with IEDs in a well populated area of the NE (I am assuming you don't believe it was a stabed event to train Police to invade rwsidential neighborhoods )If you "Don't have a problem with their response" in this instance then your photo is nothing more than a Red Herring. Are Cops using that gear on daily car stops? Are they responding to a family dispute or shoplifter in APCs? Did you make a report to an Officer in a PC and MICH that yoir car got broken into? C'mon, give me a break. Cops live in your neighborhoods. Their kids to go to school with yours. They go to the same churches, shop at the same grocery store and use the S&W banks. They are not an invading army and are not hearing up for the NWO. They are getting equipment to do their jobs better, to keep them safe while trying to help you on the worst day of your life. One other thing that is bothering me. I keep reading about how "Cops can Ruin you life". Is everyone that is arrested simply an innocent man that is just misunderstood by the Cops? Oh, the Cops MADE you rob that liquior store. The Police told you it was OK to beat your wife? Is there no personal responsibility?

Ok, who's in this Sunday?

Gotcha. Is your current gas block held in by taper pins? Another thought, get a flip up and leave it up...

Can you just get a std "F" marked front sight assembly and replace the whole gas block?

Welcome Home!

Quoted multiple times for TRUTH!!!!!

Isn't everyone?

Outstanding!!! Thank you for this!

I got the part you quoted. It is in my quote too. Still seems weird even calling it a CCW class... Weird sentencing outcome for a crime involving a firearm. Maybe that is normal and it is just NJ experiences talking...

So if thats the case should the NRA, NJ2AS, etc... Just pack up their recruitment division and concentrate solely on lobbying? Sounds like appealing to the undecided is a waste of money. If we can't change anyone's mind why are we trying?

Good on the resident and good on Councilmen Polensek for backing up his neighbor and constituent. Anybody else think this was weird? Is that common in states with permissive and obtainable CCW laws? I have never heard such a thing. Send defendant charged with illegal weapons possession to something labeled as a CCW class? Imagine signing up for the wrong one?

I believe he is "Chief" of he, him, and himself. It is a one man Department.

My in-laws were all very much anti-gun. I was able to bring all but one around to a pro-gun view and my Brother-in-law even purchased his first handgun about a month ago. Since this tirade has hit the news, my mother-in-law has begun questioning a lot of things related to firearms and who needs them. I have also heard friends and family that usually don't care about guns one way or another start to ask about why anyone - especially a crazy Chief of Police in a one man Dept need FA weapons. So yes, it does happen and this incident does effect people's decisions.

Considering the backlash that will result/is resulting (it has already started as evidenced by the link Shawn posted above) was it worth it to tell a bunch of people someting they already know? And risk alienating a large portion if the "undecided about gun rights" population that may just have sided with us?