USMC experiments with equipping every single gun in an infantry battalion with suppressors - Polidicks

[QUOTE=StrykerE;51419832]One problem that might come up with this is that suppressed guns tend to get dirtier quicker. [url]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/06/09/suppressed-rifles-get-very-dirty/[/url] There is a new suppressor from Operators Suppressor Systems that uses a completely different design than a traditional baffle suppressor and directs most of the gases forward instead of back through the barrel and out the ejection port [video=youtube;c0uYVFj_M8Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0uYVFj_M8Y[/video][/QUOTE] That is the thing with suppressors. M16's and M4's are great reliable weapons. Unless they get dirty. Then you'll start having failures to feed and even extract. I thought they were developing the M16A5 to have a piston system like the HK416 (No idea what ever happened to it). It wouldn't completely solve the issue that using a suppressor causes, but it would help a little. Also a suppressor on the current direct impingement M16's/M4's would actually increase the rate of fire and make the weapon work harder, possibly causing it to fail sooner, on top of gunking up the receiver like nobody's business And unless you use subsonic ammunition, it's still pretty damn loud, but it's more like a firecracker being set off 3 feet away than a punchy gun shot

Every single gun? The mental image of Abrams with supressors is something I want to see.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;51420881]Every single gun? The mental image of Abrams with supressors is something I want to see.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/155mm_suppressor-tfb.jpg[/IMG] Much like the PzH2000 suppressor I'd wager.

[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;51420281]That would be good, I need to sleep with a fan because of the constant ringing. There's a lot of down sides to that though. You get increased wear and tear on the gun due to increased back pressure, increased fouling for the same reason, a fairly large increase in heat buildup (though this isn't as bad with piston designs, unlike the M16/M4), and suppressors only work well when they're clean. Once a suppressor gets dirty it might as well just be a tube full of carbon that just retains heat and increases back pressure.[/QUOTE] A lot of those gas system problem can be fixed with changes to the gas port diameter.

supress mortars too please, especially the 81s.

I wonder if they could suppress the deficit the US has on the national level as well, don't get me wrong suppressed weaponry is a good idea but is that any reason to change every, single, weapon?

[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51421377]I wonder if they could suppress the deficit the US has on the national level as well, don't get me wrong suppressed weaponry is a good idea but is that any reason to change every, single, weapon?[/QUOTE] as mentioned above the cost to outfit every weapon in a battalion is $700k which is also the cost of a tomahawk missile so realistically, that's really not that much

[QUOTE=lintz;51421408]as mentioned above the cost to outfit every weapon in a battalion is $700k which is also the cost of a tomahawk missile so realistically, that's really not that much[/QUOTE] Also realistically, the tomahawk missile has terrible accuracy and is a waste of money in general

[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51421377]I wonder if they could suppress the deficit the US has on the national level as well, don't get me wrong suppressed weaponry is a good idea but is that any reason to change every, single, weapon?[/QUOTE] If you feel like $700k is a big deal, hoho, don't work in materiel acquisitions for the government. The shit we've done here at Eglin could pay for that suppressor order in two days. Although, the money we spend for RD&T is worth it if it means soldiers come home safe and sound.

Its like the japanese and bayonets, but then the USA with silencers tacticool ALL the things....

What effect do suppressors have on the ballistic trajectory of rounds fired through them? On one hand, it adds length to the weapon's barrel. On another, I figure the dispersion of gases through the baffles might reduce the muzzle velocity, or make the weapon less accurate, right?

[QUOTE=archangel125;51421450]What effect do suppressors have on the ballistic trajectory of rounds fired through them? On one hand, it adds length to the weapon's barrel. On another, I figure the dispersion of gases through the baffles might reduce the muzzle velocity, or make the weapon less accurate, right?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=StrykerE;51419901]Suppressors don't actually slow down the bullet. In fact, with 5.56 NATO there is a very small increase in velocity according to some tests [t]http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/556box.png[/t] The perception that using a suppressor decreases bullet velocity mostly comes from the fact that suppressors are best used with subsonic ammunition to get the most reduction in sound[/QUOTE] ;)

[QUOTE=archangel125;51421450]What effect do suppressors have on the ballistic trajectory of rounds fired through them? On one hand, it adds length to the weapon's barrel. On another, I figure the dispersion of gases through the baffles might reduce the muzzle velocity, or make the weapon less accurate, right?[/QUOTE] You've been playing too many video games and watched too many movies. The only thing the suppressor may affect is barrel harmonics and the bullet directly if there is a baffle strike. Since the suppressor adds length and some weight to a barrel, the way the barrel flexes is now affected. Not much of a difference at 100m, but might be enough to re-zero your rifle for greater distances. The baffle strike is self explanatory. To get the most out of suppressors is to use heavy bullets with down loaded charges so the bullet barely breaks the sound barrier. That is what video games use as a down side to suppressed weapons like in BF3 and BF4. In reality, most people with suppressors will use standard factory ammo that is still super sonic because of cost. Suppressor friendly ammo is expensive compared to standard ammo and handloading takes a lot of time and dedication. You are reducing the sound of just the gasses escaping the barrel with factory ammo but not the sonic crack of the bullet. Still better than nothing.

As long as the firearms are cleaned routinely which I highly expect to be a big thing in the military and they have their pressure settings set right, there shouldn't be any reason this wont work well. We went through a stint of using suppressors and developing integrated ones in the 80s then it just died off for no real reason, are we going to go full circle again because suppressors are great for firearms in general even with standard ammo, the supersonic crack is certainly more manageable on the ears than the shit you get with an unsuppressed gun specially when its got full auto capability. Only thing I could see being an issue is that the US really loves their direct impingement systems which with suppressors, don't really agree specially if not cleaned after use. Maybe this will push them to finally convert to a piston rifle in the future if it takes off. As for dirty suppressors, nothing to stop then kitting people with more than one for their gun so they can swap them out when one becomes too dirty, need some thick ass gloves though for when that happens.

welp, time to play insurgency with suppressors and compare the sounds.

Huh, so they're doing this to the infantry here in 29? Hmm, seems like a good idea. Too bad they can't silence artillery, tanks, helicopters or those fucking Osprey. Every time they do artillery and tank training, I can hear them and they shake my god damn house.

[QUOTE=SirKillsAlot;51421439]If you feel like $700k is a big deal, hoho, don't work in materiel acquisitions for the government. The shit we've done here at Eglin could pay for that suppressor order in two days. Although, the money we spend for RD&T is worth it if it means soldiers come home safe and sound.[/QUOTE] i'm working for a sub-contractor for a government contractor and we've got a loading dock full of expensive material we won't use and will expire because our contractor just bought a bunch of it for us without consulting us. government contracting is nuts

[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;51422548]Too bad they can't silence artillery, tanks, helicopters or those fucking Osprey. Every time they do artillery and tank training, I can hear them and they shake my god damn house.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Vlevs;51420993][IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/155mm_suppressor-tfb.jpg[/IMG] Much like the PzH2000 suppressor I'd wager.[/QUOTE] There are ways to make helicopters quieter. One way is to change the shape of the rotor blades, as Eurocopter has done with the "Blue Edge Blade" [t]https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2010/02/main-660x440.jpg[/t] [video=youtube;dBS1NRsYuF8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBS1NRsYuF8[/video] [video=youtube;2t3uCDJhce8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2t3uCDJhce8[/video] It's speculated that the Stealth Blackhawks that participated in the Osama Bin Laden raid had something like this

On paper it sounds like a good idea, but I think they'd have to replace or modify the current M4/M16 based platforms for maximum effectiveness. They are quite possibly one of the worst choices to run a suppressor on IMO. Pretty sure that the terminal ballistics of 556 relies heavily on velocity, so subsonic rounds are out of the question unless they rechamber everyone's weapons for a heavier round like 300 blackout. But caliber issues aside, some people already pointed out that suppressors can cause weapons to get dirty faster; which could be fairly detrimental to AR15 based rifles. Also I hear that gas blowback is a big issue on those systems as well. Apparently the gasses from suppressed AR15s go straight through the charging handle and into your face, and anyone wearing eye protection quickly gets fogged up from it. I think there may be aftermarket parts to help mitigate this problem, but my point is they would have to make some major modifications to the standard service rifle to get the most out of their suppressors; if they don't outright replace the M4/M16. That will probably never happen though, so more than likely they'll probably just make modifications to the existing weapons after testing.

[QUOTE=Matthew0505;51420905]Importantly it sounds like 3 feet away instead of where the shooter is.[/QUOTE] Indeed it is better, but nothing in the world right now, even combined, is able to reduce [I]general[/I] gunfire down to safe levels, period. (as in current standard issue like the M4 or a L85, not a Welrod/Deleslie or todays equivilent). Any sound that reaches the ear canal at 85db and over is capable of causing instant and permenant hearing damage (loss or tinnitus). No matter what you do, a gunshot at best [I]might[/I] be lowed to 90db and that means nothing because 1db is litterally all the difference in the world. And even then, sound does not have to travel through the ear canal to cause damage, it can travel through your skin, muscle and skull to the eardrum. Unfortunately, everyone is wired differently. 1 person can sit in a room for 3 hours with 90db of sound and come out fine (at the time, 30 years later they might be fucked because of it) while another could be exposed to 90db for less than a second and have permenant hearing damage as a result. Another problem is, the effects of hearing damage can be delayed by many years after the trauma. I know in the UK you can be compensated by the millitary for hearing damage, is it the same in the US? If so i'm sure they don't want to be forking out millions of dollars in compensation for hearing damage if they can help it, especially as around 50% of personnel apparantly get it.

[QUOTE=joshthesmith;51421418]Also realistically, the tomahawk missile has terrible accuracy and is a waste of money in general[/QUOTE] The latest Tomahawk has an accuracy of 5m.

[QUOTE=StrykerE;51422800]There are ways to make helicopters quieter. One way is to change the shape of the rotor blades, as Eurocopter has done with the "Blue Edge Blade" It's speculated that the Stealth Blackhawks that participated in the Osama Bin Laden raid had something like this[/QUOTE] I should have put that it's outgoing, I don't hear them fire, I hear it land and feel it with some tremors a second or two later. But that's cool considering the blade design, if they could incorporate it with their huey, cobra, and osprey fleet I'd be fucking happy. [editline]24th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;51422849]On paper it sounds like a good idea, but I think they'd have to replace or modify the current M4/M16 based platforms for maximum effectiveness. They are quite possibly one of the worst choices to run a suppressor on IMO.[/QUOTE] Like you and Reagy were saying, they should ditch direct impingement and go to a short stroke gas piston like HK's done with the 416 rifles, and now the M27 IAR. Would it be that costly to modify current uppers to short stroke from direct impingement? Or would it be cheaper to just buy new short stroke uppers?

[QUOTE=Vlevs;51420993][IMG]http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/155mm_suppressor-tfb.jpg[/IMG] Much like the PzH2000 suppressor I'd wager.[/QUOTE] The idea of silencing a tank is hilarious, this picture had me cracking up

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51423204]The idea of silencing a tank is hilarious, this picture had me cracking up[/QUOTE] It's to reduce the sound that the artillery produces as it is relatively near a community.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;51423204]The idea of silencing a tank is hilarious, this picture had me cracking up[/QUOTE] Its for training, to not piss off the locals and damage windows etc every time they fire some training shots.

Oh I didn't think it was for combat since its up on a static support structure. Its just comical what it took to suppress something so powerful

[QUOTE=download;51421047]A lot of those gas system problem can be fixed with changes to the gas port diameter.[/QUOTE] Changing the gas port can cause you pressure and dwell time issues. You're better off going with an adjustable or self adjusting gas block. With piston designs these are usually already incorporated, and because the gas stays in the gas block you don't run into those issues to the same degree. Honestly for the military the best route would be to use piston guns like the HK416/M27 coupled with the linear suppressor shown on the pervious page. While that suppressor isn't the quietest by any means it's a huge improvement over a standard flash hider and it'll help aliviate some of the fouling and back pressure issues.