Has “The Silencing” Begun? The Marine Corps Experimenting by Suppressing an Entire Battalion

Defense.gov_News_Photo_101101-M-6340O-058_-_U.S._Marine_Corps_Lance_Cpl._Steven_J._Zandstra_provides_security_at_a_checkpoint_in_Sangin_Helmand_province_Afghanistan_on_Nov._1_2010

On the defense side, sound suppressors have been relegated to special roles ever since their invention. Used to give stealth to special operatives, assassins, and direct action teams, silencers have been valuable tools, but not central fixtures in normal military operations.

However, that may be about to change. The United States Marines 2nd Division will be suppressing every single firearm in an infantry battalion – 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines – as part of an experiment to see how an all-quiet force changes the nature of infantry operations. Military.com reports:

In a series of experiments this year, units from 2nd Marine Division will be silencing every element of an infantry battalion — from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns.

The commanding general of 2nd Marine Division, Maj. Gen. John Love, described these plans during a speech to Marines at the Marine Corps Association Ground Dinner this month near Washington, D.C.

The proof-of-concept tests, he said, included Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, which began an Integrated Training Exercise pre-deployment last month at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms.

Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade, the division’s gunner, or infantry weapons officer, said the Lima companies in two other battalions — 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, and 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines — now had silencers, or suppressors, on all their rifles, including the M27 infantry automatic rifles. All units are set to deploy in coming months. The combat engineer platoons that are attached to these units and will deploy with them will also carry suppressed weapons, he said.

Wade said he is working on putting suppressors on the Marines’ M249 light machine gun and M240G medium machine gun, using equipment from Marine Corps Forces Special Operations Command. The third and final objective will be the suppression of the .50 caliber heavy machine gun, he said.

As the units conduct training and exercises with suppressors, 2nd Marine Division is collaborating with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab to collect and aggregate data. Weapons with suppressors require additional maintenance and cleaning to prevent fouling, and the cost, nearly $700,000 to outfit an infantry battalion, might give planners pause.

Silencers – also called suppressors – have a lot of potential when used with main infantry weapons like this. While the supersonic projectiles of these weapons mean they can never be completely silent, the addition of a suppressor does lend a lot of stealth and reduces the enemy’s ability to locate and target allied forces. Maj. General John Love of 2nd Marines and Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade described other benefits, too:

What we’ve found so far is it revolutionizes the way we fight,” Love told Military.com. “It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn’t really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons. Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control and effectively direct those fires.”

“It increases their ability to command and control, to coordinate with each other,” Wade told Military.com. “They shoot better, because they can focus more, and they get more discipline with their fire.”

The noise of gunfire can create an artificial stimulus that gives the illusion of effectiveness, he said. When it’s taken away, he explained, Marines pay more attention to their shooting and its effect on target.

“They’ve got to get up and look, see what effect they’re having on the enemy because you can’t hear it,” he said.

The primary reason suppressors have not so far been handed out as standard kit for US infantrymen is that they have historically had very short life spans when used with fully automatic weapons. Another reason is that suppressors add length, and interfere with the mounting of some attachments, like bayonets and rifle grenades. However, modern suppressors have much better durability and longevity than their predecessors, and the aforementioned muzzle attachments are today considered much less important than they were in the mid-20th Century. Therefore, I think it is not a matter of “if” but “when” suppressors finally become standard issue items for modern infantry rifles, and this will be a great boon for soldier and Marine alike.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Herr Wolf

    So most US forces’ fighting these days is in gritty, sandy conditions and they’re going to introduce suppressors to gunk up the guns even more?

    • James Kachman

      The areas of concern are fairly well sealed up during normal operation, and there’s no reason to expect that US troops aren’t able to change their maintenence habits to account for this. SF types have been using suppressors for a while, if the M16/M4 family was unworkable in the desert when suppressed, they would’ve noticed.

      • Herr Wolf

        SF are in-and-out- not protracted firefights that last for hours and sometimes days. I have shot many different suppressed calibers and the suppressors s##t up the guns quickly- it’s just the nature of the beast.

        • CommonSense23

          You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

          • Herr Wolf

            Suppressors have no role in extended firefights- why add something to the rifle that will be a detriment to the functionality.

          • CommonSense23

            How is it a detriment to reliability. I have shot out barrels with only two cleaning for the gun with my KAC can without malfunction. I have shot over a 1000 rounds suppressed without bothering to add lube in those 1000 rounds with no issue. So how are they going to effect reliability.

          • valorius

            Dude stop lying.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, improved visibility for the shooter (and no flash to detect for the shootee) and less recoil/more accuracy is absolutely useless.

          • valorius

            Maybe if he was a fake commando like you…

          • 40mmCattleDog

            Wow, Valorius being a whiney snarky uninformed douchebag and complaining like a girl 2 days into her period, whats new around here “dude.”

          • Phillip Cooper

            Ad-hominem attacks, now, huh? You’ve just inspired me to look into how to block specific users.

        • 11b

          Uhh, not true at all. Foreign internal defense. Remember when we invaded Afghanistan and SF teams rolled with haji the whole way? We’re not talking about super secret squirrel black ops guys…

        • Kevin Harron

          And you win the award for stupidest thing I’ve read in TFB comments for today.

          • Herr Wolf

            I will bet you $1M that 10 years from now only SF will be using suppressors on their rifles- just like it is now.

          • Ron

            The Marine Corps, along with the Army, have been working since 2010 on the family of small arms signature reduction system, this includes both add-ons to existing weapons and the usage of integrally suppressed weapons.
            Even prior to that it was not that uncommon to get suppressors, my entire team got them in Iraq in 05-06.

          • valorius

            We’ve been using suppressors for SOCOM niche roles for probably decades. That has no bearing on issuing them to an entire line infantry unit.

            BTW, thanks for your service.

          • Ron

            The FSASR is meant as a service wide fielding, so it will not be a niche.

          • valorius

            A force wide suppressor will never be adopted if anyone sane is in charge.

          • Kevin Harron

            Frankly, I’d pimp suppressors as a ‘health and safety’ issue. The reduction in the VA budget for hearing aids might just pay for it in the long run.

          • valorius

            The US Military has active electronic ear plugs now. Much smaller and lighter than a suppressor.

          • iksnilol

            But doesn’t improve signature reduction or accuracy.

          • valorius

            He’s a liar, he was probably a supply clerk or truck driver.

    • n0truscotsman

      Proper lubrication is a easy remedy for this. The M4 series is already pretty well sealed against conditions anyways.

    • Kivaari

      They really don’t have to shoot their rifles all that often. My son in law never fired his M249 during a year in Iraq. Not even in training.

  • James Kachman

    This could be utter natter, but would it be possible to design a suppressor that, when mounted on an M4, boosts the muzzle velocity closer to that of an M16? It would solve the length problem of a suppressed M16 and the muzzle velocity problem of an M4. (Or switch over to M855A1, Mk.262 and Mk.318 which aren’t velocity dependent, but hey, why not have some fun.)

    • M.

      No. Suppressors operate by trapping the released gasses. Any boost in velocity would be the result of the opposite of that

  • NewMan

    The M27/416 and 417 work extremely well with suppressor. Another great opportunity to completely switch over to the 416 and 417. Calling it now, it won’t be long until our entire military standardize the 416 and 417. HK will start making 416 and 417 in the US, and both will become the standard NATO rifles. Win win for everyone, our military, HK and civilians.

    • Herr Wolf

      At $700K/battalion it is hardly a win for the US taxpayer.

      • NewMan

        If we can afford to waste money on crap like the F35, pointless wars in the ME, and wasting time trying to “improve” the flawed DI M4, we can afford to equip our entire force with the superior platforms like 416 and 417. In fact, switching to 416 and 417 will drastically reduce cost since we no longer have to waste time and money trying to improve a flawed system like the M4

        • valorius

          Waste of money. Which is also what the M4 is. The M16 was just better.

          • Joseph Goins

            I take it from your post that you never attempted room clearing in Baghdad with an M16A2. You are speaking out of ignorance.

        • HSR47

          Piston guns like the 416 are far too heavy for any serious use.

          If I’m going to have to hump around a 10+ pound rifle, it better be in a full power rifle caliber.

          • GD Ajax

            No, their not. Only those who are morbidly obese complain about lugging around a heavy rifle.
            The “light rifle” under five pounds is nothing more than a crutch.

          • HSR47

            *They’re.

            It isn’t just “the morbidly obese” that complain about the weight of equipment.

            This statement alone indicates fairly clearly that you have little concept of what it’s like to be a ground-pounding infantryman.

            To put it simply, I and others are telling you that the 416 adds ~2 pounds to the equipment load of guys that are already hauling around 80-100+ pounds of gear. Your answer to legitimate concerns about weight is to suggest that the groundpounders of our military are all a bunch of fatties.

            It’s not about weight, it’s about combat effectiveness, and long-term health issues. Know why Larry Vickers is fat? A big part of it is that hauling all that gear around during his military career destroyed his knees. Needlessly replacing light gear with heavy gear is not a recipe for combat effectiveness.

          • iksnilol

            I think he’s fat cause he kept eating like he was in the military when he was not anymore.

            Surplus of calories.

          • HSR47

            Eating habits are certainly part of it, but a lot of that is that his work keeps him constantly on the road.

            Have you ever tried to diet while eating at restaurants for nearly every single meal?

        • roguetechie

          Flawed in your own mind maybe…

          People that hate on the DI system make me laugh.

          • HSR47

            This.

            I’ve never had a problem with DI AR-pattern guns. As long as they’re built right to begin with, they run without issues.

            As an example, my .300 blk upper is DI, and at least half it’s round count has been shooting FA on various M16 lowers. It runs like Forrest Gump.

      • Ron

        700K per battalion is budget dust in DOD, the Marine Corps spends almost 4 times amount to equip all its infantry and infantry like units every year just to guard embassies.

        • valorius

          Is that why they’re flying around in 40 year old plus helicopters and driving around in 40 plus year old AMTRAKS? Cause they have money to burn?

          • Ron

            Currently the oldest platform we have is the 53, it is in the works to be replaced with the 53K. Part of the reason at one time we had the oldest fleet of aircraft was we had invested in the technology after the next in the MV-22s and F35. If we had upgraded mid-life to a than state of the art system, there would still have been a need to develop the new technology, so by taking risk and maintaining the older tech we skipped an intermediate system fielding.
            The AAV was suppose to be replaced already but the program was killed, so the sunk dollars are lost and now we are working on another replacement
            Either way all those are major procurements, 20-30 mil for suppressors is not a major procurement.

          • valorius

            How old is the AH-1? They blew how many billions on that AAV btw- and still no help is coming for the decades old AMTRAK.

            The USMC doesn’t have any money at all for nonsense like this.

          • Ron

            We fielded the H-1Y/Z within the last 5 years.

          • valorius

            It’s a 50 year old airframe and design. The AH-1Z’s primary design feature dates to 1979. The USMC is still using this ancient design because it’s broke and has no money to buy Apaches.

          • Ron

            The H-1s are used not because we could not get Apaches, they are used because a reduced foot print on a L platform ship. AH-64s don’t fold up as small.

          • valorius

            If it was about folding up small the USMC would’ve never adopted for the Osprey, they have a huge footprint on deck.

            The USMC uses the AH-1Z cause they’re broke.

          • Ron

            Having work in the Pentagon and spent 27 years in the Marine, I can assure you, your assessment is incorrect. We could have had AH-64 or UH-60s if we desired them And MV-22 folds into the same space as a CH-46, the real issue with the MV on ship usage was 1) they weigh more than the CH-46 making the ships more top heavy and 2) heat produced by the downward venting engine on landing and take off.

          • valorius

            Nope, i was just a regular old nasty leg grunt.

            Out of curiosity, how many nations use the AH-1Z?

            The rotor wash from MV-22’s and the lack of defensive weaponry is also an issue, correct?

          • roguetechie

            They actually like the AH-1Z, and for their uses it probably really is a better system.

            The air wing basically strangling the rest of the USMC however is definitely a real problem.

            BUT

            $700K per battalion is literally nothing cost wise… To even pretend that cost should be a deciding factor here is silly.

          • Ron

            H-1Y/Z program actually post dates the origins of UH60/AH64 programs. In reality the only thing they share with the aircraft they are replacing is a general look and name, since these are completely new builds

          • valorius

            I will say this, the Cobra is the meanest looking attack chopper of all time, and the original single engine design with it’s 30″ wide airframe made real sense. We had AH-1S birds, they were almost impossible to see at distance. But with just 2 bladed rotors they very loud.

      • ClintTorres

        The cost of one Tomahawk missile is around $560K.

    • James Kachman

      Fwiw, though I don’t advocate for switching over to the 416, the Marines are trialing an entire BN armed with the 416 derived M27.

    • CommonSense23

      Except the military who are stuck with 416s now. You know what also works well with suppressors. M4s.

      • NewMan

        Trying to direct even more crap and heat into a system that’s already crap where it eats and proven to be unreliable under extreme conditions? You go on ahead and keep clinging onto the flawed DI and put our forces at risk in combat. Everyone else is moving on and realize the superiority of HK system. You can’t stop this.

        • John

          >Everyone else is moving on and realize the superiority of HK system.

          Then I suppose England and New Zealand are enormous pains in the rear, both of whom adopted Lewis Machine and Tool rifles over Heckler and Koch.

          And also, Poland uses their own Bren rifle.

          And of course, China couldn’t care less about the AR-15.

          The fact is, many armies are starting to switch and enhance what works for them and for mission superiority, because they’re starting to become as active in war roles as the United States military is. That is what is going on.

        • CommonSense23

          Its funny cause on my issued 10inch I always ran it suppressed. And rarely cleaned it. Like every couple thousand rounds. Got over 6000 rounds once without cleaning, and used it in a variety of locations. No malfunctions. If it’s such a flawed gun why was I and all the other, guys I worked with have that as the norm.
          What I always find interesting is that so many people I have seen wanting 416s have never actually spent any large number of time and rounds with the gun. Cause most of the guys I know who have ran both the SOPMOD M4A1/MK18 and the 416 for any period of time. Are either ambivalent or wanting their MK18s back.

        • AC97

          You’ve been watching Future Weapons, haven’t you?

          Future Weapons is like meth: Not even once.

        • n0truscotsman

          Assertions you are making are backed by non-existent data.

          I’ve asked you before. Provide citations about the 416s supposed superiority.

      • valorius

        Know what doesn’t work with suppressors? A bayonet.

        • GD Ajax

          Bayonets. Because that works when the enemy has their own LMG and 7.62 rifles and machine guns and is some how as good as a machete.(it isn’t)
          Seriously, time to drop that Luddite argument

          • valorius

            The British mounted a Bayonet charge in Iraq just a few years ago dude. A highly successful one, i might add.

            There is absolutely zero legimiate reason to issue suppressor equipped carbines to troops that already have active electronic ear plugs. Zero.

          • Malthrak

            Literally one example in a single CQB in the last 25 years that has been blown gigantically out of proportion for “cool factor” story, where largely they just stuck the bayonets on and did their normal CQB drill.

            Bayonets are an anachronism that have no meaningful purpose on a modern battlefield.

          • valorius

            There have been multiple bayonet and knife hand to hand engagements int the past 25 years world wide. My personal favorite is an el salvodorean corporal who killed a whole squad of Iraqi insurgents with a switch blade.

            Wanting suppressors on infantry weapons is the epitome of mall ninja nonsense.

          • iksnilol

            No offense, but in a hand to hand engagement a bayoent mounted on your rifle is nothing short of useless.

          • GD Ajax

            The mall ninja/mcninja crowd needs top clinging to that as proof that bayonet charges. If the enemy had a at least one PKM, they would be dead. (their becoming quite common in both Iraq and Afghanistan
            It is no indication of the return of the bayonet to modern warfare. The Brits just got lucky and charged a poorly trained enemy.

            Active electronic ear plugs are cheap half assed solution adopted when the business majors at the Pentagon wanted to cut corners and stiff the troops on the ground. Suppressors have come a long way since the 90s.

          • valorius

            By mall ninja crowd i assume you mean ex infantrymen? It’s a historical fact that in the recent past the bayonet has been used to great effect by a modern military force.

          • iksnilol

            Then why is there only one example that gets used all the time?

          • GD Ajax

            US infantrymen can become mall ninjas like anyone else.
            Your arguments are not based in historical fact, just rapid fanboi BS. A lucky charge ten years ago that was basically pure luck is not relevant today.

            Any CQC/CQB these days are down to knives, or blades smaller than a sword. Can a bayonet cut through grass or wood like a machete, or breach doors like a Tomahawk or a Halligan bar? No they can’t. These are also useful as melee weapons.

            I question your service now, because most ex military members are better informed these days. In fact most of soldiers I’ve met are also tech geeks who know better.

          • valorius

            Look dude, there have been bayonet engagements in the Iraq war and the GWOT. That’s a fact. I was in the infantry and while we used our bayonets as utility tools almost all the time (and we did use them all the time), i would never want to be in a situation where we were out of ammo and facing over-run and i didn’t have the ability to fix bayonets.

            When might that ever happen? In a war vs china i could definitely see that happening, much as it did over and over and over in Korea when we fought the chinese.

            Especially since the US military has totally abandoned area denial mines and cluster munitions.

          • valorius

            Suppressed infantry carbines- what could be more mall ninja?

          • iksnilol

            Why is it mall ninja?

            Harder to trace, easier to fire. Increases shooter survivability a ton + protects your ears without depending on electronic toys (that’s what electronic ear pro is at best, I only use it for .22’s)

          • AC97

            Because reducing the sound signatures of guns and making it harder for the enemy to pinpoint where the shots are coming from are totally useless.

            You’re seriously worse than I was when I wouldn’t accept that .300 Blackout wasn’t pointless.

            Then again, you were the guy who advocated .45 ACP for shots at 200 yards…

          • valorius

            We gonna be firing MG’s and grenades? Or are we suppressing all that too?

            Seriously….

          • valorius

            A .45 carbine is perfectly adequate for 200 meter shots. Ideal? No, but it’s certainly adequate.

          • GD Ajax

            Not really. It’s reality. What’s Mall ninja clinging to the past like it means something. Like those who claim the 1911 is the greatest handgun ever.
            Maybe my knuckle dragging Japanese ancestors can attest to the effectiveness of bayonet charges against an HMG next. Oh wait, Their dead!. NVM.

            Do EEPs have immunity to EMPs? Nope, they do not. Suppressors don’t have that problem.

          • GD AJax

            *HMG nest*

          • valorius

            If there is an EMP every piece of electronic gear in the platoon, to include the unit’s red dot sights, will be non functional.

            Suppressors will be the least of your problems.

          • iksnilol

            If you have an EMP you most likely have a nuclear WW3 at hand.

            I don’t think “weak, piddly electronics on mah manly firearms” are going to be a priority.

          • valorius

            I agree, but i didnt bring it up as a reason why we need suppressed weapons.

          • iksnilol

            THE BRITONS DID IT, ONCE TWO MANS AGES AGO, AND IT WORKED QUITE WELL INDEED!

            Yeah, no offense but the past 20 years in Iraq and Afghanistan there’s been, I’d dare say slight majority, of firefights that didn’t depend on bayonets to be won.

        • AC97

          Who freaking cares?

          • valorius

            Well i’m an ex grunt and i absolutely care about that.

          • roguetechie

            They didn’t teach you how to muzzle strike?

            I think I’ve actually seen cans with enough reinforcement to use this technique too.

        • n0truscotsman

          So what?

    • 11b

      Nope. People have been saying this for years. The military is not going to abandon the M4, which works fine, for something marginally better and FAR more expensive. Aint gonna happen.

      • valorius

        I agree with your sentiment, however the US military abandoned the M16 for a rifle that arguably less effective when they adopted the M4 for a huge boatload of money.

      • Scott Connors

        IF HK starts mass producing the 416 on this side of the pond, the unit cost will fall to more reasonable levels.

    • John

      >Calling it now, it won’t be long until our entire military standardize the 416 and 417.

      Until Heckler and Koch finally build a U.S. factory dedicated to manufacturing the 416 and 417, that ain’t gonna happen. Full stop.

    • User

      Oh god please not. this would be the larget amount of waisted money on smallarms ever. Metal bottleneck cartridges, and huge spacewaisting bottleneck mechanisms, with bouncing around heavy bolt carrier, have no place anymore in modern Infantery Smallarms.

    • roguetechie

      Thank god you’re not in charge…

  • CommonSense23

    Suppressing belt feds such as the 46 and 48 are going to have some of the biggest effects. It greatly improves the ability of the weapons to be shot while standing.

    • valorius

      I never had any problems shoulder firing an M60.

      • Phillip Cooper

        CoD play doesn’t count.

        • valorius

          Not talking about CoD troop. Shoulder firing an M60 was a regular part of our training.

    • DIR911911 .

      depending on deployment , those belt fed guns can really use the noise as a part of their effectiveness , no one wants to raise a head to look when they are going off.

      • iksnilol

        Yeah, but problem is when you do let out bursts you get tons of muzzle flash. Which draws more fire to the poor sod with the MG.

  • 11b

    Suppressors are great but I see no way the military, *especially* the Marine Corp, will pay for it. The initial cost is high and then you have Joe, who is going to break everything so some will have to be replaced on a rolling basis. Maintenance is going to be uber expensive too, retraining armorers and all. Maybe if we pull a couple mil from the F35

    • CommonSense23

      Modern suppressors have extremely little maintenance. I shot out multiple barrels without ever changing my KAC can.

      • 11b

        Fair enough. I guess I’m just cynical about the military buying any good stuff for us grunts lol

        • DIR911911 .

          then you should compare what they are using now compared to when I was in back in 1990. everything from weapons to mre’s to uniforms . . . the list is endless of all the improved equipment issued to soldiers today.

          • valorius

            Improved? Like the uniforms they spent billions on that make you more easy to spot? Or the M4 that has inferior ballistics to the M16?

            There have been some definite improvements..and some definite cluster fks.

          • Kivaari

            That M4 sure is handy.

          • valorius

            How handy is it with a suppressor screwed onto the end? At that point it’s just an M16 with reduced ballistics.

          • roguetechie

            With modern ammunition much of the disparity between m16 & m4 ballistically has been clawed back.

            Now for people like me that uncle sugar doesn’t buy ammo for… I’ll keep rocking 18-20 inch barrels and practicing my short stocking techniques just to be safe.

      • valorius

        Sure you have.

    • valorius

      Just another enormous waste of money.

      • DIR911911 .

        yeah ,, we heard you the first time. get over it.

        • valorius

          no.

      • john huscio

        Hardly, suppressors are a drop in the bucket……… The F-35?…….now THAT’S a waste of money….

        • valorius

          The F-35 is also a waste of money. Though in defense of the USMC, the Harrier is completely whooped ane extremely vulnerable to IR missiles due to it’s nozzle location.

          • Jake

            ISIS has state of the art IR missiles? we cant afford to outspend russia and china 6x over every year. theres a huge difference between trying to give grunts better tools and another pie in the sky trillion dollar weapons program that will never be used in the world war it was built to win.

          • valorius

            We don’t know what the future holds. If we ever find ourselves in the war the F-35 was designed to fight we’ll be damn glad we have them.

            And damned unhappy that we cancelled the F-22 after less than 200 were built.

            I don’t view a suppressed carbine as a useful general issue infantry tool. Maybe for a pointman on patrol, or something to that extent, but given the choice between a suppressed M4 and an M16A4 with an ACOG i’d happily take the M16 every time.

      • n0truscotsman

        Not remotely.

        *not* standardizing suppressors would be an enormous waste of money, from a troop health perspective.

        • valorius

          Ear plugs work. The new electronic ear plugs they issue work really great, from what i hear the troops saying on discussion forums.

    • Ron

      The Marine Corps is normally very successful at getting end of the year plus from Congress, in reality the amount we are talking about here is budget dust in the Pentagon. I

    • NovemberBravo

      Perhaps. But. If suppressors can cut down on the amount of disability claims due to hearing loss, this could actually save money in the long run.

      • Joseph Goins

        Ear plugs work wonders.

        • NovemberBravo

          Agree. When used. — I am up for anything that can curve this stat:

          “As of the close of fiscal year 2014, more than 933,000 Veterans were receiving disability compensation for hearing loss, and nearly 1.3 million received compensation for tinnitus.” – USVA

        • roguetechie

          Active ear pro AND suppressors work even greater wonders.

          It’s not that I disagree with you about the ear pro, I just don’t see it as an either or scenario.

          Combining the two, especially since the good active ear pro routes comms and can amplify quiet stuff, gives the dual blessings of making your unit harder to pinpoint and engage while helping to partially lift the fog of war and allowing excellent intraunit communication and coordination.

          The two things working together really can create a synergistic effect that is greater than you’d get from just one or the other.

  • Ευστάθιος Παλαιολόγος

    What are the possibilities of a suppressor being integral to a military rifle?
    I mean being part of the barrel, sort of, especially to not to increase the length of the rifle and not to ad weight way up-front

    • Darkpr0

      It is possible. The Russians have already done this with the VSS Vintorez and related arms. It’s not general issue, but they are certainly capable of doing so if they felt the need.

      • valorius

        We already have suppressed M4’s in service. And have for years.

        • Darkpr0

          the q was about integral silencers

          • valorius

            I’d be pretty surprised if some SOCOM unit or another doesn’t already have those too as COTS items, to be honest.

    • Kevin Harron

      Weight will increase. But look at the SR25/M110 and SIG MCX for how it can work out.

    • DIR911911 .

      cough cough , honeybadger , cough cough

  • Shaun Connery Oliver II

    Well it’s about time! VA disability claims are still going up due to our Devil Dogs losing their hearing after leaving the service! It would be a great disservice to our US service members as a whole if we DO NOT implement such as an idea as this to all of Our Troops! #HearingProtectionAct

    • valorius

      I thought they introduced new active ear plugs that eliminated this concern?

      • Ron

        All the services issue combat arms hearing protection, Marines and SOF also issue active hearing protection (not sure if big Army does or not). However, these are often not worn because of issues with long term comfort and you just don’t know when you will come under fire.
        However one the big reasons if you read the actual development document and see some of work done on it is to reduce firing signature observation from the enemy, increasing survivability of friendly forces.

        • valorius

          So you want troops to carry around a carbine that’s longer and just as heavy as an M16 while still being stuck with carbine ballistics because, according to you, our troops are too dumb to wear their fancy active protection ear plugs?

          This is one of the dumbest ideas the US military has ever had.

          • iksnilol

            Eh, suppressors for general issue are nothing short of genius.

            Ignore hearing disability for a moment and consider the other factors: harder to spot/trace direction of fire and more accurate fire.

          • valorius

            Gonna suppress the ATGMs, grenade launchers and machine guns too, or just the carbines?

            WTF, over.

          • iksnilol

            Suppressed grenade launchers have been done. Still in use by Russia. Grenades are subsonic so easy to suppress . And suppressed MGs are also a thing.

          • n0truscotsman

            the noise other weapons make is a red herring, IMO, because *thats already addressed by existing ear pro*.

            The ‘logic’ behind, “oh, suppressors on standard carbines are a waste of time because other weapons are loud” is so utterly idiotic, it shouldn’t even be warranted a response.

            But having carbines with suppressors complimented by ear pro to address the logarithmic problem of the decibel is a *good thing*, not a bad thing.

            And what does it take away, exactly?

            Oh right. Bayonets and six inches of overall length savings. woopdie doo…

          • valorius

            Don’t feel bad, i find no value in your posts either.

          • n0truscotsman

            “A suppressed M4 firing supersonic ammo is not quiet.”

            Of course a contained explosion of a necked .22 caliber cartridge is *not* quiet. That should already be obvious at this point among those with even a modicum of firearms knowledge.

            Where did myself and others argue suppressors make firearms quiet? Nowhere.

            The point Im trying to convey is suppressors reducing decibels (increasing unit cohension and command and control), muzzle flash, and recoil are advantages to fielding them. Previous concerns of reliability and durability have already been addressed by maufacturers over the past 10 years.

            Do you understand how the decibel unit works? or what ‘Logarithmic’ means when it comes to sound and potential hearing damage?

            http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/db.html
            http://www.animations.physics.unsw.edu.au/jw/dB.htm

            A combined 40-60 decibel reduction is significant, when one combines the protection of combat earplugs and reduced signature of suppressors.

            You’re trying to argue that the negatives of 5-6 inches in increased length and the lack of an ability to attach a bayonet automatically undoes any of the aforementioned benefits above. Thats utter lunacy.

            That mentality explains why getting suppressors to line units has been a long, drawn out process for over a decade despite the huge advantages modern designs offer. There’s a word for that too.

          • valorius

            your arguments are based on call of duty tacticoolness, i think.

          • n0truscotsman

            You mean based off of pesky things like science and mathematics? Which inconvenience those who attempt to bedazzle others with bullshit and magical thinking?

            Keep digging. Just dont get pissed when I knock the dirt pile on top of your head.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Very true…. the Germans even have suppressed *Artillery*.

            Granted, it’s for a specific use, but still.

          • Gunner4guy

            Was wondering when someone would bring up ‘suppressed’ artillery. Having been exposed to lots of out-going 105’s, 155’s and a few 8″ I have my doubts about toning down the noise. Still, dampening the out-going during fire missions and “Battery 4’s or 5’s” would have been nice. Every gun-bunny I know has significant hearing losses in both ears.

          • Phillip Cooper

            It’s done at select ranges in Germany owing to prox to housing areas. Apparently civvies don’t like the sound of freedom in the distance.

            And no, it is definitely not mobile.

          • Gunner4guy

            Ahhh, that explains it. Never did a tour in Europe.

            Dag-nabbit, now you’ve made me curious enough about these pieces that I need to spend some time researching on the German tubes…..LOL!
            BTW, a 155mm ‘Pig’ firing canister over open sights is a beautiful thing to behold – they’ve all been retired many moons ago in favor of the M198’s but surely someone has 8mm home-movies of it….

          • Phillip Cooper

            Arty used in a direct-fire role??

          • Gunner4guy

            Yes. Seen it with the M101A1’s and the M114’s – firing out over the wire. I’ve heard of the towed 8-inchers and 175mm’s used in direct-fire but never saw it. Presume the newer 155 SP’s can can do it–just not as easy to swing the tube.

          • Phillip Cooper

            That seems like a VERY BAD DAY if Arty has to go play direct fire.

          • Gunner4guy

            Agreed. The fast-movers were busy so we had to make do with what we had. It worked–didn’t mind replacing the wire, Claymores and trip-flares.

            The M102 105mm towed howitzers that were coming into service when I left country can be rotated around on the base with the trails emplaced. Don’t know if the new M198 can be rotated too or not. All I know is the 101A1’s were a ‘female dog’ to manhandle.

          • valorius

            I suffered significant hearing loss while serving in a 4.2″ mortar platoon. My fiancee is constantly giving me grief cause i don’t hear half the crap she says. Which, honestly, is probably for the best. 😀

          • valorius

            Call of duty is calling.

          • iksnilol

            Never claimed it was quiet either, you’re the one hung up on that.

          • Oliver BombDog

            Marine rifle squads no longer carry machine guns.

          • valorius

            Well that’s brilliant. Do they carry grenade and rocket launchers?

          • Phillip Cooper

            and more importantly, MUCH greater Command/Control.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Way to over-simplify the issue and miss the point.

          • valorius

            Right, cause im only basing my opinion on actually having been in the infantry.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Just as I was. 1988-1994.

            what else ya got?

          • valorius

            OK, so tell me how your experience differs than mine, that you think general issue suppressors are a good idea?

            Are we suppressing our machine guns, grenade launchers rocket launchers and ATGMs too?

          • Phillip Cooper

            First and foremost- better command/control.

            Secondly- make it less easy for the opposition to locate the incoming fire. I HATE the idea of being in an ambush when all of a sudden rounds start impacting and I don’t have flash/report to figure out where they are coming from. Having my enemies in that same situation makes me VERY happy.

            Suppress every damn thing you can.

          • valorius

            So you dont think electronic hearing protection is even better for command and control?

            So in this theoretical ambush, are you not going to use your machine guns, grenade launchers and rockets? Your plan would be to ambush an enemy force using only carbine fire?

            Support weapons are pretty loud, eh?

          • Phillip Cooper

            I never said warfare was going to be quiet. But if you make it much quietER, it will be easier to communicate between elements. Also, if you’ve also gone and work electronic earpo on top of that it’s even more effective.

          • valorius

            Is not the main selling point of the M4 that it’s short and handy? (i personally think the weight difference between an M16 and M4 is inconsequential)

            Give me a choice between a not short and handy M4 and a more powerful not short and handy M16, and i’m going M16. The M16, of course, is also a lot quieter than an M4 when it comes to the blast/sound the shooter experiences.

            Since combat will absolutely entail the firing of all weapons in the squad/platoon, to me the argument that the enemy wont know where we’re shooting for is not valid in the real world, at least the overwhelming majority of the time. (A suppressed SDM would be an exception, i suppose).

            When i was in we didn’t have electronic hearing protection or suppressors and yeah, it was absolutely a challenge to be heard above the din of gunfire.

          • Tom Tom

            ditto. I carried around an A1while in the army and a A1with a 203 In the USARNG after. Today I own an M4 and I have to say it’s a heavy hog comparing them all. I much prefer the 20″ pencil barrel A1 in all respects.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Agree, except I go for the HB. I shoot better with it.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Same here. 88-94. Hell, we were just starting to get soldier-level NODS when I got out.
            I think the length between the M4 and M16 comes into play mostly when you’re in/out of vehicles all day.

          • valorius

            I never really felt the length was a problem in PC’s. I can see how it would be in a HUMVEE, but those were just support vehicles.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Well, were SUPPOSED to be just support vehicles. Never saw the rational of using them for patrolling urban areas.

          • valorius

            The book Cobra II clearly illustrates how Donald Rumsfeld contravened the TPFDL (Time Phased Force Deployment List) and shaved off tens of thousands of personal and millions of tons of equipment that the US Military’s super high tech computer generated deployment list called for, in order to prove his “transformational” warfare theories and shave down the force from the Military mandated 385,000 troops to approx. 185,000.

            Every single thing that happened there is directly at the feet of Donald Rumsfeld.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Thanks, have added that to my queue on Amazon.

          • valorius

            You might want to also check out the book “Fiasco.” Another excellent book on the subject of what went wrong in Iraq. It was recommended to me by a West Point officer who commanded one of the first Stryker Companies in Iraq.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Thanks! Added to my ebook queue as well.

          • Doug Wicker

            From the article:

            “Wade said he is working on putting suppressors on the Marines’ M249 light machine gun and M240G medium machine gun . . . .”

          • Tom Tom

            Grenade launchers are actually quiet compared to any other gun. Just a thud and off it goes.

          • valorius

            While a 203 is not as loud as an M4 5.56mm round, it’s certainly not quiet. It is a subsonic round though…so if you actually put a giant honking suppressor on it, it would be hollywood quiet. lol.

          • valorius

            BTW, thanks for your service, and i do agree improved command and control at the squad and platoon level is a very important thing to improve whenever possible.

          • Phillip Cooper

            My service, compared to what these kids are doing in the Long War, is inconsequential. I trained to fight Ivan, not a bunch of 7th Century tribesman death cult members.

          • Bland Samurai

            Ever heard of freebore boost? That’s why 10.5″ barrels with suppressors are so popular in SOF.

          • Sunshine_Shooter

            Suppressors didn’t make short barrels popular because of their velocity increase, they made them popular because you can fire them indoors and not permanently deafen your entire squad/fireteam immediately.

          • Bland Samurai

            Active ear pro minimizes that. Otherwise, running 14.5″ M4 barrels with suppressors would be the norm if noise was a concern. Shorties found better bullet stability with a suppressor.

          • valorius

            So you’re advocating our infantry forces carry suppressed 10.5″ carbines?

          • J. Murphy

            Yeah, but you get a minor increase in muzzle velocity, which according to the Book of valorius, the circumstantial value of a slight increase in muzzle velocity far exceeds such piddling concerns as length and weight.

          • valorius

            I can only share my first hand experience as a simple former infantryman. What does the book of J.Murphy rely on to form it’s opinions?

            If 14.5″ is ok for a standard issue weapon because of handinees, why not 10.5″? Why not 9″? Heck, why not a FN P90?

            I agree 100% the M4 is great for vehicle crewmen, gun bunnies, engineers, and all manner of REMFs. But to me- based on my experience, the M16 is a better infantry rifle.

          • J. Murphy

            Math and history. Your experience as a “simple former infantryman” is worthless, soldiers of all nations tend to believe all sorts of garbage myths about their rifle. “Experience” tells you what it’s like to be a soldier, it doesn’t tell you jack about hit probabilities or effective range in battle conditions (which is NOT the same as effective range on a firing range).

            Your impassioned defense of the M16 comes from it being the rifle you were issued, not due to any special merits the weapon itself has. It’s not a rare mentality, your predecessors denigrated the M16 for (literally) the exact same reasons, that it gave up on maximum effective range for advantages in every other department.

            The M4’s maximum effective range is 500 meters, which happily, is also the maximum range the average Grunt is estimated to be able to engage point targets at. Sure, just past that point the M16 might remain effective for another 50m, but that’s not what assault rifles are for, that’s what designated marksmen are for, and arguably the M27 IAR gives Marine Squads that capability without effecting CQB effectiveness in the way that handing everyone a cumbersome M16 did.

            “If 14.5″ is ok for a standard issue weapon because of handinees, why not 10.5″? Why not 9″? Heck, why not a FN P90?”

            Because an SBR is only effective up to about 300 meters even with the newer open tipped ammo, and current PDW’s struggle to be effective even up to 200 meters due to the ammunition they use. An assault rifle is inherently a compromise between two classes of weapon, and it needs to maintain that balance to be effective.

            “But to me- based on my experience,
            the M16 is a better infantry rifle.”

            You’ve totally failed to make a good argument for your case so far. If the job of an infantryman was to engage targets effectively at 525m all day every day, the M16 would indeed be superior to the M4.

            But that’s not the infantryman’s job. He’s Motorized, he’s Mechanized, he’s air mobile, he’s kicking down doors, he’s doing a lot of things, and more and more of it is vehicle based and in close quarters with the enemy. In those conditions, having 3.5 less inches of real rifle to worry about is far more important then the loss of 50 meters of theoretical range.

          • valorius

            Well your experience as a call of duty player definitely trumps mine.

          • J. Murphy

            “Well your experience as a call of duty player definitely trumps mine.”

            Actually, I don’t play call of duty, nice try though.

            Would probably be a better use of anyone’s time then sitting in the comments loudly complaining about how back in their day real men carried full length rifles, could shoot the left ball off a gnat at 600 meters with iron sights, and charged enemy positions with bayonets fixed, loved every second of it and that Carbines are for REMF’s and Mall ninjas.

            My having no military experience would be a valid criticism if I was calling for some drastic paradigm shift in how soldiers are equipped, but I’m just explaining changes that have already been taking place for some time. I’m sorry, but the 20″ barrel on an assault rifle is a dying combination, even the Marines have given up on the M16.

          • n0truscotsman

            The funny thing about this is that guys like me (grunts) have been proposing suppressors among line units since the Kosovo-era, then subsequently Afghanistan, then Iraq.

            I know for a fact we weren’t the only ones.

            This was before modern suppressors too, which are far ahead of what they were in the late 90s, early 2000s.

          • valorius

            Suppressor equipped carbines is a huge paradigm shift in how infantry forces have always been equipped- with rifles.

          • J. Murphy

            You’re conflating two separate technologies. The suppressors are something the Marine Corps is testing currently, I’m not advocating it, they’re testing it, and they’ll draw conclusions from the field testing. The M4 replaced the M16 in Army service 20 years ago, the M4 replaced the M16 in the Marines a year ago, if you wanted to complain about the M16 being replaced by the M4 in the United States armed forces, you’re several wars too late.

            “how infantry forces have always been equipped- with rifles.”

            Aside from being a logical fallacy (Something being tradition doesn’t necessarily make it correct, the original logic my have been faulty, or circumstances may have changed since the tradition was instituted, such as improvements in ammunition issued.) that’s also a factually incorrect statement.

            Italy’s Carcano model 1938, Germany’s Kar98k, and the Soviet Union’s Mosin–Nagant 91/30 were each the standard infantry rifle of their respective country going into WWII, and they were all carbine versions of rifles each country used in WWI. The French MAS-36 rifle, and the American Springfield M1903 and M1 Garand rifles were carbine length compared to the rifles they replaced, even if they’re not considered carbines by modern standards.

            Even if, for the sake of your argument, we only look at the post war period. And, for the sake of your argument, arbitrarily disqualify anything with a barrel length of over 20″ from being described as a Carbine, after all “carbine” is hardly a scientific classification now that armies don’t have horse Calvary divisions in the field.

            The STG 44 had a 16.5″ barrel, the AK has a 16.5″ barrel and most 5.56x45mm conventional layout European rifles have barrel lengths between 16.5 and 18 inches. If anything the M16 has an unusually long barrel for an assault rifle.

          • valorius

            All those rifles youre referring to as carbines actually had rifle length barrels.

            The M4 has been around for 22 years as a replacement for SMGs, but was not officially adopted force wide until much later. Indeed the M16A4 wasn’t even accepted into service until 1998. The M4 did not become standard issue for US Army infantry forces until well into the war on terror era. A decision that i still believe was an error that created significant wounding problems with the standard issue M855 round due to reduced velocity, ergo reduced and delayed fragmentation.

            For 220 years the US Army infantry carried rifle length barreled weapons, so indeed standard issue short barreled carbines are a paradigm shift, let alone suppressor equipped carbines.

            In closing, i stand by my point.

          • J. Murphy

            The “Kar” in Kar98k stands for Karbiner, which is the German for Carbine. The rifle decended from the Mauser 98. “Carbine” is not a classification, it’s a description, and throughout rifle history, today’s carbine tends to become tomorrows rifle.

            The M885A1 EPR is not the same round as the M885. When there’s a problem with the ammo, you don’t try to compensate for the ammo, you get better ammo, and that’s what they did.

            I suspect your defense of the M16 in the face of all evidence has more to do with your strong belief that the best way to conduct MOUT is to stick a blade on your rifle and use it as a spear.

          • valorius

            I know what kar stands for, but the point is it had a rifle length barrel of 23.6″.

            I know M855A1 is not the same as M855. There was nothing wrong with M855 until they tried to use it in short barreled rifles. In the 20″ M16 it is an entirely different animal. That extra velocity makes a huge difference in fragmentation and neck length.

            My opinion is based on actually being an infantryman, and having actually operated with all these systems in the field.

          • J. Murphy

            It wasn’t a rifle length barrel, it was a carbine. It’s a rifle length barrel compared to an AR15, but they didn’t have AR15’s in 1935, they did have the Mauser 98, that was a rifle, and it had a 29″ barrel, rifles have gotten shorter over time.

            M855 was not adequate, it received constant criticism from the time of its introduction about its lethality against soft targets and doubts about its effective range even out of an M16 barrel. The M855 would have been replaced with the M855A1 even if the Army had continued issuing M16’s, there’s no point in crowing about a 50 meter range advantage when you’re loading ammo that’s extremely suspect after 300 meters, even out of a 20″ barrel. A US army trying to equip all infantryman as Marksmen was you desire would have needed to replace the M855 anyway.

            The Army has been using M4’s and M4A1 for years now, there’s no problem with the muzzle blast. The potential advantages from suppressed rifles are many, that’s why the Marine Corps is testing it, they wouldn’t field test something if they didn’t feel it was a suggestion with some merit. The Taliban aren’t outranging Coalition troops with “ancient bolt action rifles”, they’re outranging them with PKM and DShk machine guns, which don’t require any great skill at arms to use effectively. An old bolt action might have a theoretical range of 1,000 meters, but the combination of rudimentary iron sights, poor ammo quality and a poorly trained user means its not going to outrange an M4 with any consistency.

          • valorius

            There is no problem with the muzzle blast….so they want to use suppressors?

            We’re just going round and round. Obviously we won’t come to an agreement.

        • Oliver BombDog

          I don’t know about anyone else, but marine infantry does not get issued any sort of active ear pro, and generally dont get issued ear pro at all, some guys get foamies at CIF but most don’t.

          • Ron

            In 2007 the Marine Corps bought 48 k pairs of quite pro active hearing protection to use in conjunction with the PRC153 (IISR) and PRC152 (some are single band and some are duel band), however most Marines don’t even know what the QPs much less ever trained to use them. When I did my wall inventory to take over my MAL, I had quadcon full of them that had been sitting there for years and never used because no one knew what they were

            The IIF (use to be CIF) issues everyone a pair of CAIBs, you either get the yellow/green or flesh colored ones. The yellow/green ones you put the green side in for training and yellow in for when you need to hear. For the flesh colored one they have switch for training or for when you need a sonic valve like effect.

    • Phillip Cooper

      I was not a Marine, but I was an Army Infantry soldier many years ago (long before GWoT was a thing). Even though I was mostly a peacetime troop, I still have significant hearing loss due to gunfire. It’s about damn time they gave this a serious try.

      • Phillip Cooper

        We will ignore, for the sake of this discussion, that I also have significant hearing loss from my heavy metal headbangin’ days.

        (which extend to this morning. 😉 )

        • me ohmy

          dude..I have only one word for you…
          HAMMERJACKS..
          let me know if you want to know more

          • Phillip Cooper

            You have my attention….

          • me ohmy

            hit me on facebook, I work with the HAMMERJACKS ENTERTAINMENT GROUP in Baltimore m/-_-m/
            facebook dot com/Mike.F.Di

          • Phillip Cooper

            I am a male over 20. I don’t do Facebook.

          • me ohmy

            okay then go here; www dot hammerjacks dot com
            stand by for awesome..

    • Joseph Goins

      Respectfully, that’s the fault of the servicemen. I wore ear plugs in every engagement I was in during Desert Storm and GWOT. I still have my hearing.

      • Phillip Cooper

        And they DEFINITELY interfered with command and control. The few times we wore them in training you couldn’t hear much of crap clearly except for your own heartbeat.

      • moecephus

        Don’t sound like a grunt or you were quite a ways from the enemy!

        • Joseph Goins

          If you consider room clearing “quite a ways from the enemy,” then sure. I was an 11B in the 1/75th, went to college, received a commission as an 11A with the 75th right in time for the invasion of Afghanistan. I eventually earned a master’s degree and had an MOS change to 38A when I went over to the newly formed 95th CA BDE(A).

    • moecephuis

      I started using ear plugs whenever the situation permitted. I have less hearing loss than most of my peers, but the years of: artillery fire, fire fights, riding in helicopters and fix wing aircraft, trucks and armored vehicles, the inconvenient results of what the enemy did in terms of explosions and small arms fire, tends to erode the old hearing. Sure I used protection on the range and even wore them during insertions of my recon team. But when it came time to do a lot of things, it was time for pure nekkid ears.

  • Major Tom

    Guns want to be freeeeee! Guns have a right to be loud!

    #NotAllGuns

  • Malthrak

    So…how expensive are we going to make the most basic infantry weapons systems?

    Between M4, Acog, Suppressor, lights/lasers/IR/grips/etc, we’re going to have $4k rifles (probably closer to $5-7k at civilian prices) when the opponents we are fighting are running around with 60 year old AK’s in most cases.

    • randomswede

      What do you think recruiting, training and maintaining an infantryman costs?
      And as much as I hate to point it out, what do you think a dead one costs?

      A purely material example would be buying a Corvette and then saving money on oil, fuel and tires; it’s not looking after your investment or getting the most out of it.

      • valorius

        This is a stupid development. Just give the troops M16’s already- they’re quieter than an M4, no longer than a suppressed M4, and have superior ballistics.

        And how the heck do you mount a bayonet on a suppressed m4?

        • Quest

          And who the heck needs a bayonet on an M4/M16? Making it even larger for building clearing?

          • 40mmCattleDog

            No he needs a bayonet so he can go back into his head and fantasize about charging a PKM crew in WW3.

        • iksnilol

          I’m sure somebody would develop a solution if it was needed.

          Considering we’ve been shooting instead of stabbing each other the last 80 years or so I’d say it’s a moot issue people like you dredge out when they run out of arguments to whine about.

          And a suppressor adds like 4 inches in length.

        • iksnilol

          Yeah, because 2 db and 50 meters extra extreme range beats 20-30 db and better everything except for the aforementioned 50 meters extra.

          • valorius

            They have electronic earplugs that work better than suppressors. An M16A4 has about 50% longer fragmentation range than an M4.

          • iksnilol

            Bulls—, it has 50% more frag range under very specific conditions.

            Usually it has only 25% or so more frag range. And for both rifles frag range is less than half the range of the rifles themselves (150 vs 200 m frag range isn’t relevant at 300-500 meters).

          • valorius

            Sorry, no, it’s closer to 50% longer frag range, and even 25% is a very big deal. As long as the military eschews the use of expanding ammunition and relies on fragmenting ammunition, velocity will continue to be a very big deal.

          • iksnilol

            I am going from Nathaniel’s calculations. Max frag range was 200 or so meters, that was ideal weapon and ammo condition. And if you’re engaging at 300-400 meters, then frag range matters not.

          • valorius

            I usually use AR15 dot com for my 5.56mm information. I haven’t seen Nathaniel’s data. But for the sake of argument even if we use the stat you quoted, 25% is still quite a big difference.

          • iksnilol

            You haven’t seen his data? THE ONE HE WROTE AN ENTIRE POST ON?

            Now you’re just being obtuse.

          • valorius

            Nope, i dont read every single post every single poster or author makes. Sorry. my point stands.

          • iksnilol

            He literally wrote an article about it, which we both commented on. You’re one of those that just skips the article to comment?

            Good God.

      • Malthrak

        The issue becomes when a single infantryman costs more to equip than the total lifetime economic output of typical opponents (particularly when their value on human life is lower as well), that makes waging extended conflicts (such as those we have engaged in over the last 15 years) an unsustainable proposition.

        Same thing happened with the old Battleships before carriers overtook them. They were very big and impressive, and highly capable, but so expensive nobody could afford to lose them to less capable but far cheaper threats like mines and torpedo boats, and ended up nearly bankrupting nations for ships they couldnt afford to actually use. If insurgents can lose 20-1 and still maintain a cost advantage and their morale holds, issues arise.

        • randomswede

          Can you win “the war on terror” on the battlefield? I doubt it.
          Can we let the “organized f-heads” have their way? I think not.
          How would you compete in cost efficiency against an enemy that places little or no value in human life and is armed with what the cold war left behind? To my mind it’s not even worth doing the math on.

          It’s not 20-1 for this enemy, it’s essentially “whatever it takes”-1.

          Can you sink too much money into equipping a single infantryman? Certainly; but battleships didn’t so much fail because they were expensive they were expensive because they failed.
          Their time had passed; but to my knowledge the only way to actually hold ground is “boots on the ground”.

    • DIR911911 .

      the most basic would just be an m4 without any of the stuff you mention.

    • n0truscotsman

      And our effectiveness is *remarkably* superior to insurgents equipped with decades old AKs.

      Optics, weapons lights, and Infrared lasers provide enormous combat capabilities that iron-sighted AKs cannot provide.

      • Malthrak

        Sure, but at the same time when a single one of our infantryman costs more to equip and train than said insurgents total lifetime economic value, that has an effect as well if they have a greater willingness to trade lives, as seen in countless conflicts over the last 100 years. Same issue with using an $80,000 missile on a dude who wont make that in his entire life. Such lavish costs can only be sustained in relatively short conflicts.

        • n0truscotsman

          Thats an entirely different argument for another time.

          But my basic point is true. The average american infantry squad offers far substantial capability than the average taliban one. Technology, with its own limitations, offers huge advantages.

  • valorius

    With this experiment EVERY advantage of the M4 is completely eliminated.

    You know have a rifle as long and heavy as the M16, but still lacking the superior ballistics of it’s 20″ barrel.

    Ridiculous.

    • AC97

      So you’d rather them do this experiment with a 20 inch barrel?

      I wonder how bullpups would fare in this experiment…

      • valorius

        No, i’m saying this experiment is a completely stupid waste of money. Money that we simply do not have- we are literally going to have to borrow the money for this stupidity.

        • Ron

          one the big reasons if you read the actual development document and see some of work done on it is to reduce firing signature observation from the enemy, increasing survivability of friendly forces.

          • valorius

            Waste of money.

          • G B

            Just spoke with a couple of retired Army SF guys a few months ago and one of them was talking about the first time his unit deployed with silencers. He said that his personal reservations about weight and fouling were removed during their first gun fight. He was saying that the enemy was taking cover in places that didn’t make sense and returning fire in the wrong directions because they couldn’t discern where the incoming fire was coming from at first.

          • valorius

            Supersonic ammo largely negates the purpose of a suppressor. Were they using subsonic ammo?

          • CommonSense23

            No it doesn’t.

          • valorius

            Yes, it does, mr i never clean my weapon in theater for thousands of rounds at a time, but im an elite soldier. Or is it mr. “What is RAS” but im a police trainer.

          • Ron

            Even when you shoot at people with super sonic ammo, they often don’t know where the round is coming from or for that matter they are under fire. In 08 in Helmand our scout snipers starting using suppressors on all their weapons, and left weapons behind on patrol if they did not have them. What of the major observations was at distance they could take multiple shots at the enemy without them even knowing they were under fire.

          • valorius

            At long engagement ranges an enemy will normally have to take several rounds of incoming fire to locate a sniper anyway.

            Not discounting what you’re saying, but we all know a supersonic crack is very loud and distinctive and can give away your position just as a muzzle report can.

            This is a total waste of money.

          • iksnilol

            They weren’t using subsonic. That’s why they took cover in wrong places.

            They hear the bullet whizz past but not where it was fired from, leaves more interpretations where it came from.

        • DIR911911 .

          we already “borrow” money for everything our country does. why should this be any different? communication can be key to not killing the wrong people and anything that improves it should be considered.

          • valorius

            Because it is a complete and total waste of money, and you can take the quotations off borrow.

          • 00Turducken

            First, thank you for your service valorius. I find your adamant position on this interesting. I would, for the sake of debate, question if the crack from supersonic ammunition would really “give away” the shooter’s postion.

            Would it be audible? Yes. But given the natural cacophony of any contact with the enemy, I can’t imagine it would be the final deciding factor that would get you killed by return fire.
            Personally I see this as another valuable tool to add to our boys’ arsenals. While I share the sentiment that bayonets may have validity still in today’s battlefield, I would argue that the suppressor would ultimately outweigh it provided they are still armed with a capable, quick to deploy melee weapon i.e a fixed handheld blade.

          • valorius

            When a supersonic round goes by you it makes a zinging sound that can give away the bearing of the shooter once you’re used to the sound.

            I just question the utility in making a carbine as long and heavy as the rifle that the military justified replacing because it was too long and heavy. It makes no sense at all to me.

          • iksnilol

            I dunno, hard to track where the round is coming from without the accompanying muzzle sound.

          • valorius

            An unsuppresed M4 is 165db (approx) a suppresed M4 is approx 135db

            From Surefire FA556A Suppressor: 14.5 inch M4:

            135 db

            A professional DJ sound system is 130 db. 128 db is as loud as a human can scream.

            From “decibel equivalent table”

            A suppressed M4 firing supersonic ammo is not quiet.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but whether you’re getting shot at or not is not the same as whether you know where they’re shooting from or not.

            Is that a hard concept to grasp? I can shoot at you, you can be aware that you’re getting shot at, but not know where you’re getting shot at from.

            Again, the round is gonna carry the sound due to breaking the sound barrier, but at about 100 meters or so, you won’t hear the muzzle report (will hear the bullet, but that’s a hard one to trace).

    • ClintTorres

      Are you in the hearing aid business or something?

      • valorius

        I’m an ex grunt. Where does the bayonet go? Why carry a carbine longer than an M16 that has inferior ballistics? And spend millions to do it?

        This idea is beyond stupid.

        • Malthrak

          Well…how often does anyone actually use bayonets (almost never), and the tradeoff with the 20″ barrel is less hearing damage and noise pollution for the grunt and unit commander. Not an unreasonable tradeoff on its own vs the 20″ ballistics.

          The big issue is just the cost.

          • valorius

            may 14, 2004- google it. The British utilized a bayonet charge to overwhelm the enemy in Iraq and wipe them out without a single loss of their own.

          • Ron

            actually the Marines have done multiple bayonet charges during the GWOT.

          • valorius

            Haven’t heard of them, though i haven’t looked either. As an ex grunt- not a high speed low drag operator- just a nasty leg grunt, the concept of no capability to put a bayonet on my weapon seems patently insane.

          • HemingwaysBeard

            I don’t get why you’re worried it can only be one or the other. It’s not inconceivable to design a bayonet that attaches to a quick detach supressor mount.

          • valorius

            It was a comment in passing that several people jumped on, so i explained my rationale as to why i think a bayonet is still relevant.

          • Malthrak

            Right, one instance twelve years ago over the last fifteen years of constant conflict, and no evidence that the bayonets played a decisive role in that engagement.

        • Ron

          have you ever actually used a suppressor? It makes it significantly harder for the enemy to see you shoot at them and at distance often allows you to walk your shots in because they are not sure they are under fire.

          • valorius

            Yes, i have, and only if the ammo is subsonic. Are you saying we should issue the USMC subsonic ammo force wide?

          • Ron

            No need to, the issuing of suppressors is less about being hearing safe to the shooter but instead to reduce firing signature

          • valorius

            The sonic crack still gives up your location. Obviously it’s not ‘as loud’, but a suppressed M4 firing supersonic ammo is by no means a quiet weapon.

          • iksnilol

            It doesn’t give away your location. Try a suppressor with supersonic ammo and see for yourself.

          • AJ187

            Not enough to know that like a bayonet most suppressor systems (direct thread or quick change mount) can be taken on and off. I’m sure you could mount a bayonet with the proper lug remaining on the weapon.

        • Slim934

          “Where does the bayonet go?”

          Ideally into a military surplus store, or an electric arc furnace to be melted down into something else, or just a trash can. All would make vastly more sense than putting them on a rifle in the 21st century.

          • valorius

            Basra, Iraq, may 14, 2004- google it.

          • Slim934

            The exception that proves the rule. I’m glad they survived in this case, but given the details surrounding it I think my point remains valid. The only thing the bayonets seemed to do was to instill a feeling of aggression that allowed them get up and charge the enemy while being shot at. A doctrine which is not trained or heavily enforced, otherwise why would the soldier who instigated the charge given a Military Cross? Military Crosses are not handed out for following basic doctrine.

            If the choice is between having a lug attached for a tool which has something like a 1 in 10,000 chance of being useful vs. a tool which is useful everytime one has to fire their weapon, my guess is that most grunts would rather trade the former for the latter.

        • AC97

          Oh really? Do tell, why would you need a bayonet?

          Are you Gecko45 or something?

          Also, they make suppressors with a length shorter than six inches you know…

          • valorius

            For stabbing people…like the British did in Basra on may 14, 2004. Completely overwhelming the enemy without a single loss of their own.

            Let me guess, you didnt’ hear about that?

          • AC97

            No, I’ve actually heard about that, but quite frankly, that kind of thing happens so rarely as to be a non-concern. I’ve also heard about how terrible bayonets were in WWI (close quarters)…

          • valorius

            As fellow TFB poster Ron pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the USMC has engaged in bayonet charges during the GWOT.

            Is it rare? Yes. Is it still a practical means of attack in some circumstances? Absolutely, yes.

            We have active hearing protection for our troops, we don’t need suppressors.

          • jono102

            It relative, Yes I still think a bayonet/Combat blade that can be affixed to a rifle is still required. As a utility device and for its intended purpose. I’ve personally seen the “Calming effect” on a large angry crowd when soldiers fixed bayonets. Fixing of bayonets is also a good psychological trigger or mental graduation in a soldiers mind.

            But proportionately in the GWOT what would have been most useful the majority of the time to a soldier on the ground, A Suppressor or a Bayonet on the end of their rifle? How many soldiers have had to stick someone with a Blade Vs engage a target/threat in low/no light and/or from an enclosed space. Also a Bayonet will add about the same length as a suppressor to a rifle.

            Its the same as the trade off of barrel length, yes you have some loss in terminal effects M16-M4 but it makes little difference for the vast majority of situations its used in, in the hands of most soldiers. What does the soldier spend most his time doing with his rifle? Carrying it, so the length and portability is a major consideration in its trade off’s. When employing it generally only getting effective range out of what he can locate and identify, which is where there is little difference in the 2.

          • valorius

            The vast majority of the time we just used our bayonets as utility tools, sure, but if you ever find yourself in a situation where you need a bayonet, you’re going to REALLY need a bayonet.

            If we fought china with their sheer numbers we’d quickly find ourselves running out of ammo and being over-run (just as we did in korea, and just as the germans did on the eastern front in russia). In those situations, you damn well better have a bayonet.

          • jono102

            In a contemporary environment, if you are forced to commit to close combat against a numerically superior enemy with bayonets due to lack of ammo you will have a lot bigger issues. In reality there’s only 3 places you’ll end up going, On the run, into the bag or into the ground.

        • john huscio

          Replace the bayonet with a fallkniven A1 (modified blade if so desired) worn on the belt or chest rig/bodyarmor. Your upgrading your kit, providing soldiers with a better made, more useful tool.

  • ClintTorres

    I’ve always wondered how soldiers do what they do without becoming deaf in minutes. ARs are LOUD. I can’t imagine the scale of deafening(literally) noise when a bunch of guys are all firing at the same time in rapid succession and no ear pro in sight. Do your ears grow calluses or something?

  • therealgreenplease

    I’m amazed as to how negative the reactions are to this experiment. A few notes:
    -suppressors generally increase muzzle velocity
    -suppressors can be very cheap in mass production if designed accordingly.

    I agree the M4 is the wrong platform for suppressors: the cyclic rate is already borderline too high and the increased back pressure will only accelerate wear on the bolt. However, this isn’t an experiment to see how weapons function with suppressors. This is an experiment to see how suppressing weapons affects combat for general infantry. Combined with the right type of ear-pro (something that selectively filters noise) I’d imagine the ability to actually hear what’s going on around you would be positive for situational awareness.

    In the future we might design weapons around a suppressor meaning that we would go to cased telescopic intermediate caliber ammunition fired from a suppressed bullpup.

    • micmac80

      Indeed in terms of suppresor design US market snowbaleld into rediculusly expensive stuff,sometimes costing over 1k$ , i Europe we had much more of the cheap stamped and welded sheet metal designs that cost 150-200$ and some were full auto rated one of such cases are those from Reflex Oy Finnland

    • Scott Connors

      I suspect that another goal of this program is to make the case for the USMC swapping out M4s completely to HK416s (M27).

  • jono102

    It strikes me as commonsense, like a bayonet a rifleman isn’t going to patrol around all day with a suppressor on as a rule. Like the Scots (Brits) who did their bayonet charge in Iraq, they at the time were vehicle mounted so of course they didn’t have a Bayonet (or suppressor if had been issued) whilst in their vehicles etc They dismounted and fitted them prior to the assault.
    The suppressor has its major advantages in low light/night fighting or static firing positions especially in confined space where its extra length is not a major disadvantage. As part of night routine prior to darkness you set your NVE up and fit your suppressor. You minimize your signature to your enemy and minimize its effect on you and your forces i.e. muzzle flash, concussion and a good degree of sound. In the morning just after first light you take it off. If your firing from a static position within buildings i.e. Overwatch or part of a fire support base suppressors are perfect for the same reasons. Also with normal ammo you can get a general direction of a threat engaging you, with a suppressed rifle the best you’ll get is the threat is somewhere across a 180 degree arc.

    So when you need your suppressor you put it on, when you don’t you take it off.

    • LCON

      Ont of the biggest drivers of this I Think is the fact that in the future the Armed forces are going to be fighting more and more and more in Urban combat.

  • Giolli Joker

    Cool… but I read some hype in the words quoted:
    unless they’re moving also to subsonic loads (unlikely) there will still be plenty of sonic booms.

  • Joseph Goins

    #1. They do not work well for CQB as it increases the overall length back to the M16.
    #2. They do not work well with sustained rapid fire (30+ magazines in some battles).
    #3. They do not work well at protecting battle hearing (compared to ear plugs, etc.).
    #4. They do not work well standard issue ammo (M855A1, M262, M33, etc.)

    End result: They will not be universally adopted.

    • iksnilol

      You can get short suppressors, There’s suppressors that add 10 cm only, and regardless of that most suppressors can be quickly detached/attached.

      If you fire 30 mags in short order, you need an MG and fire discipline.

      Work better than electronic ear pro.

      Ammo doesn’t really impact suppressor function, unless you use keyholing ammo for some reason.

      • Joseph Goins

        “If you fire 30 mags in short order, you need an MG and fire discipline.”

        True, but you may want to read up on the Battle of Wanat. One soldier said that he personally fired “about 40 magazines.” Another guy reported shooting twelve magazines until his gun jammed and he grabbed another.

        ” Work better than electronic ear pro.”

        #1. I said “ear plugs,” not “electronic ear pro.”

        #2. Suppressors don’t do a thing to mitigate the sound of enemy weapons, explosions, etc. They do a half-ass job at solving a problem.

        ” Ammo doesn’t really impact suppressor function, unless you use keyholing ammo for some reason.”

        Ammo selection impacts the sound signature of the weapon. You still have sonic booms with suppressors.

        • Ron

          Of the many reasons listed for fielding a family of suppressor, hearing safety is actually the last an not even threshold requirements. The reason for fielding these is reduce the signature of the shooter

          • jono102

            Exactly, I don’t know where people get this notion of “Silent Weapons” being a key requirement. At the Counter Sniper demos our Army runs, they demonstrate how effective suppressors are at target end with standard ammunition. The very few roles that do have the requirement of having no signature has access to the likes of specific weapons and subsonic ammunition.

            As for the “Sonic Boom” of the round people are referring to here, never heard it referred to as that in military circles only the “Crack and thump” process. “Crack” being the round breaking the sound barrier heard at target end and the “Thump” being the report of the rifle just after. The suppressor removes the “Thump” and makes locating the firers direct pretty hard.

        • Ron

          I think you are combining the battle at FOB Keating/Kamdesh PRT with the Battle of Wanat.

          At Wanat one solider SPC McKaig said, “My weapon was overheating. I had shot about 12 magazines by this point already and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn’t charge my weapon and put another round in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down.” McKaig reached for Ayers’ rifle, only to discover that it was also out of service, as it had taken an AK-47 round directly through the receiver.
          At Kamdesh some troops claimed to have fired over 40 magazines through their weapons but non-reported failures.

          • Joseph Goins

            Ah. Thank you for pointing that out.

    • Ron

      The US government developed and owns the patent for an integrally suppressed M4 that leaves the weapon with a 14.5″ barrel (they will start experimenting the future with Mk18 length guns) that stay cleaner longer, heat up slower and has significant in back pressure than when used alone (can also be used with a muzzle mounted can).

      • Joseph Goins

        What is the patent number?

        • Ron

          Patent No.: 9,273,920, Patent Date: Mar. 1, 2016

          • Joseph Goins

            Thank you for pointing that out. I have not heard about that before.

    • CommonSense23

      1. Who is doing CQB with a M16?
      2. If suppressor work with belt feds, why are rifles going to cause a issue?
      3. Who is patrolling with ear plugs in? And ear plugs do not reduce your signature.
      4. How do they not work well with modern rounds.

      • Joseph Goins

        #1. I said that an M4 with suppressor has a comparable overall length.
        #2. I never discussed MGs.
        #3. I patrolled with ear plugs. (USMC wants to reduce hearing damage.)
        #4. Standard issue rounds create sonic booms that are not hearing-safe.

        • iksnilol

          You did sorta mention indirectly MGs. If an MG can survive with a suppressor (and vice versa) then an M4 can also survive it.

          • Joseph Goins

            You are inferring something that was not implied.

          • iksnilol

            You said that suppressors weren’t durable enough to handle repeated, continuous automatic fire (“30+ magazines” a quote from you), I said that there are suppressors for MGs.

            And I think a run of the mill M249 or MG3 handles waaay more fire than a M4 will. So if suppressors can handle those firing regiments, they can handle extended fire from M4s as well.

    • SGT Fish

      brevis II. problem solved

    • n0truscotsman

      1.) The M16 has been out of standard service for a while, and the additional length to the M4’s 14″ barrel is countered by reduction in decibels and flash, which increases effectiveness.

      2.) Modern suppressors are very durable and will outlast barrels in many cases.

      3.) Modern suppressors reduce decibels by 20-30, which is roughly equivalent to what combat earplugs provide, which is 20 decibel reductions

      4.) Yes they do. M4 and Mk18s with suppressors are effective and reliable.

      • Joseph Goins

        #1. Increased effectiveness with sound and flash is not the same as mobility.
        #2. I doubt the durability of silencers in long engagements when it heats up.
        #3. Cool. Does that in any way decrease the sound of opposing fire or explosions?
        #4. I was issued an Mk18 with silencer. It doesn’t eliminate the sonic boom.

        • iksnilol

          Again, whining about sonic boom?

          • Joseph Goins

            Sonic booms take away the stealth advantage of silencers and still require service members to wear ear protection. If DOD wanted to do this right, they would be issuing subsonic ammunition. (I am speaking with a good bit of combat experience overseas where I was issued the M4 and later the Mk18 with silencers.)

          • iksnilol

            Who mentioned stealth?

            Signature reduction doesn’t necessarily mean stealth.

          • n0truscotsman

            SIlencers/suppressors offer a 20-30 decibel reduction, which still leaves 120-130 decibels for every shot fired. Thats not *stealth* by any stretch of the imagination.

          • Joseph Goins

            You really aren’t going to stop, are you?

          • n0truscotsman

            No I’m pretty much finished. It seems many are not interested in facts or reason whatsoever.

          • Joseph Goins

            “Not interested in” subjective “facts or reasoning whatsoever.”

        • n0truscotsman

          1.) “flash is not the same as mobility.”

          /facepalm/

          Are you *trying* to convince me that an additional 4-6 inches produces a significant loss in mobility? Thats utterly ridiculous

          2.) I couldnt’ care less if you doubt their durability in long engagements or not. Modern suppressors are proven to be durable, even with high shot volume, and there are a myriad of sources available.

          3.) “Does that in any way decrease the sound of opposing fire or explosions?”

          No it doesn’t. And?

          To quote you previously, ‘thats why there are combat earplugs’.

          and for the user doing the shooting, whether in combat or training, the advantages are significant due to the reduction in decibels.

          4.) Again, the sonic boom is why suppressors should be complimented with existing hearing protection. Unless you’re one of those guys that believes they can be used alone…

          • Joseph Goins

            “I couldnt’ care less if you doubt their durability in long engagements or not”

            I couldn’t care less about your opinions. Have a nice day!

          • n0truscotsman

            They’re not *my* opinions, cupcake. Plenty of information about modern suppressor durability if you pay attention. Or you can continue sticking your head in the 1990s-firearms technology sand pit for all I care…

  • Henry Reed

    The KAC QDC line seems like the obvious choice. High durability, little to no POI shift, under 140 dB, lightweight and designed for high-volume fire.

    • SGT Fish

      no. the delta p design brevis II is perfect. short, one piece, good suppression. screw it on and never take it off. it is soldier proof. clean weapon as normal

  • 2805662

    As an advocate for suppressors for general issue for years, this is a welcome development.

  • gusto

    how come not all prior active combat soldiers are all deaf?

    I mean the ww2 guys firing 30-06 next to each other and so on

    I hunt with a silencer but still use in your ear protection mostly for the radio, don’t want that to be heard out

    • pun&gun

      To be fair, the M1s had a lot less volume of fire. I expect a lot of the WW2 folks just went untreated and undiagnosed, though.

      • iksnilol

        Yup, part of going old that you can’t hear stuff.

  • Scott Connors

    While I think that the general issue of cans is a very good idea, I think that attempting to suppress Ma Deuce might be A Can Too Far: any suppressor capable of reducing the muzzle blast to hearing safe levels is going to be rather large and heavy, and I wonder what hanging that much weight on the end of the barrel of a recoil-operated MG is going to have? Of course the Barrett M107 is also recoil-operated, and there have been suppressors developed for it (but I’m not sure how well they worked). It is, of course, possible that the .50 BMG generates enough recoil to overcome the added weight (perhaps with a reduction in cyclic weight?) It should be very interesting to see how this works out.

    • jono102

      The Suppressor with the M107A1 is very good and makes is quite nice to shoot. I know both the UK and Australian military have been evaluating suppressors on both MAG/GPMGs as well as some on M2’s. There was some footage around of the brits using suppressed M2’s of a Coyote

    • iksnilol

      Why?

      You want signature reduction on both HMGs and anti-materiel rifles (less dust kicked up).

  • n0truscotsman

    Many amazingly ignorant comments

    From the Army and Marine side, getting suppressors for general use has been a hard fought battle for 10 years, if not longer.

    During this time, suppressor products have also evolved considerably, leading to some very reliable, durable, and effective models available to both military and civilian consumers. So a 20-30 decibel reduction is pretty typical nowadays.

    I think the naysayers don’t understand the decibel or the problem of hearing loss. Since it is on a logarithmic problem sort of speak, a sound reduction from the rifle of 20 decibels combined with a reduction in another 20 decibels from ear plugs is *hugely* important to weapons operators.

    This is also combined with the reduced muzzle flash of suppressors, which is a good thing.

    Seeing suppressors standardized among infantry units would be a huge step towards actually spending money where it would be the most useful IMO.

  • Rob

    If you are just reading this for the first time avoid the comments below.

    Good job on my beloved Corps getting the war fighter the things they need. This was a long time coming.

  • Tassiebush

    Just seems like the obvious direction for things to take. Perhaps the designs will be different down the track but it seems too useful a function to not use it.

  • Joe

    General points to all the naysayers and doubting Thomas’s.

    1. You can have a suppressor and still mount a bayonet, just not a standard issue bayonet without a special adaptor of course. *Cough Geisslle Cough*
    2. In the GWOT suppressors have shown there value in hundreds if not thousands of firefights.
    3. Suppressors are available that only add 4″ to overall length.
    4. If you are getting into a 40 magazine firefight the last thing you care about is how hot your suppressor is getting.
    5. M2HB’s are almost always vehicle mounted or on a fixed post. The extra 10 lbs isn’t going to make a difference to anyone.
    6. Suppressors are not designed and never have been designed to eliminate the sonic report of the round downrange, HK MP5 SD SMG and similiar designs excepted. Imagine your on a foot patrol and your squad begins receiving a fussilade of accurate fire. You CANNOT see the muzzle flash, or dust signature, and you CANNOT hear the muzzle report. Only the sound of rounds hitting flesh or snapping past your head at 1,000 – 2,500 fps. THAT is but one of the benefits that suppressors give the Warfighter.

    • Phillip Cooper

      WELL said… and #6 is the stuff of goddamn nightmares!

      • iksnilol

        The stuff of dreams when you are the nightmare 😉

        • Phillip Cooper

          True statement!

  • claymore

    All these comments and no one even mentions the prohibition of sound moderators by the Hauge conventions? ( yea yea I know it’s not the Geneva conventions but a related set of laws of warfare I forget the proper title at the moment.) Just because they are old rules they just can not be just ignored like they are now doing with hollow point bullets which are also prohibited.

    Don’t get me wrong I think the use of suppressors and hollow points are just what we need BUT we could find ourselves up to the arm pits in lawyers and charges for some unlucky US serviceman who is the guinea pig that gets charged with war crimes by the “International Court” circus for use of a sound moderator and or hollow point bullets.

    • pbla4024

      Where? Article 23(e) of 1907 Hague Convention only says: (it is forbidden) To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;

      • claymore

        that is for hollow points and or (their nomenclature “dum dum bullets) Keep looking sound Moderation is also covered.

        • pbla4024

          Quote it then

          • claymore

            Do you own research. A good place to start would be found in Daniel E. Watters post

          • pbla4024

            My research shows you do not know how to spell Hague 🙂

          • claymore

            And so that all you got?

          • iksnilol

            “Do your own research”

            AKA I’ve no idea about my sources but I heard it somewhere even if nobody can find that “source” again.

          • claymore

            Look these convention were promulgated after the FIRST world war and the rules are written down in an actual book not posted online. While I would love to name chapter and verse unfortunately my reference books are in the states and I’m not.

            So if you have a burning desire to attempt to prove me wrong go to an actual library you know those brick old buildings that nobody but smart people goes in anymore and LOOK THE RULES OF WARFARE UP YOURSELF.

          • iksnilol

            Problem is, I did look up the rules. And I found nothing qbout silencers. Explosives and poison, sure, but not silencers.

          • claymore

            You are not looking in the correct place.

          • iksnilol

            I dunno, give me a “good source” then. I did only check Hague convention and a couple of others that prohibited various stuff in warfare.

          • Ron

            That is strange because the ICRC does have searchable data base of the laws of war. To include all the all the conventional weapons prohibitions, I honestly believe you are confusing that there is a 1980 CCW Protocol 1 on non detachable fragments and not understanding there it is not a prohibition on less than-detachable weapons, but instead one on use of wounding mechanisms that make it harder for surgeons to treat.

          • iksnilol

            The one which lists all the sources that prove you wrong?

            Yeah, I’m pretty sure you’ve not read Daniel’s posts.

        • DIR911911 .

          googled the shit out of it, nothing.

      • Ron

        Its not in there

    • “6.5.4.6 Suppressors (Silencers). A suppressor or silencer is a device that is
      intended to reduce or disguise the sound of a firearm’s discharge without affecting its ability to fire. There is no law of war prohibition on the use of a suppressor, and silenced weapons have been a part of the inventory of military forces and law enforcement agencies in many States, including the United States.”

      US DOD Law of War Manual (June 2015)

      “There is no law of war requirement that a combatant must be ‘warned’ before he or she is subject to the application of lawful, lethal force. A landmine provides no warning; neither does an ambush, a sniper, a machinegun in a concealed defensive position, a Claymore munition in a defensive perimeter, a delayed action munition, a naval mine, or many other means or methods of warfare. A sentry or personnel in a listening or observation post lawfully may be killed quietly, preferably through surprise, by garrote or knife attack. A surface-to-air missile undetected by its targeted aircraft likewise kills by surprise.”

      W. Hays Parks, Special Assistant for Law of War Matters, Office of the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, Memorandum re: Legality of Silencers/Suppressors (Jun. 9, 1995)

      • claymore

        And what made them check LOL Think maybe somebody brought this to their attention perhaps.

        • There is plenty of barracks lawyer nonsense. For instance, the very next section in the DOD Law of War Manual discusses the fact that anti-materiel weapons, like .50 BMG, are perfectly legal to use against individual enemy combatants.

          • claymore

            Sop do you volunteer to use one and be the guinea pig for a indictment and trial?

          • n0truscotsman

            Then provide examples of a service member *actually* being prosecuted for using a supposedl ybanned suppressor in combat conditions…

            Boy, a cursory google search yields nothing. Ill continue looking though, since Im not exactly confident in people’s ability to cite their assertions lately.

          • claymore

            Guess you can’t google very well there are several indictments, convictions, and incarcerations already performed by the world court. Or are you just being obtuse?

          • n0truscotsman

            Provide links. It was your claim.

          • iksnilol

            Well, provide some sources for indictions or incarcerations due to using suppressors.

          • claymore

            Don’t twist my words. I realize english is a second language for you but I wrote there have been convictions for WAR CRIMES.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, that’s kinda normal. Suppressors aren’t war crimes tho. So I don’t see how relevant mentioning war crimes is.

          • claymore

            But you are incorrect their use would be a war crime.

          • iksnilol

            I am not incorrect, since their use isn’t a war crime. Or literally all SF units of basically all countries would then have to be indicted.

          • claymore

            Doesn’t matter to the law WHO uses them. Only who they chose to indict.

          • iksnilol

            Well, it does matter, since the law would have indicted somebody by now if they were illegal.

          • claymore

            Guess it’s beyond your comprehension of the law.

          • iksnilol

            Not really, no where are devices for masking or reducing noise mentioned as being illegal (if mentioned at all).

            So again, if you can’t provide a real source (and geriatric made up ramblings don’t count by the way) then we have to see the truth for what it is: silencers aren’t illegal in warfare.

          • claymore

            And try and keep this at an adult level no insults are necessary or needed. So prove they are legal with sources.

          • iksnilol

            Oh no, the burden of proof is on you. You are the one saying they are illegal yet have no proof of it.

            The accuser has the burden of proof IIRC.

          • claymore

            And you are the one saying they are legal.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, but you claimed first that they were illegal. And due to a lack of proof from your side we can safely assume they’re legal. Especially considering nobody has been indicted or convicted due to using a suppressor.

          • claymore

            You know what happens when you assume.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, you’re usually wrong. Just like you assuming suppressors are illegal without having any proof of so.

          • claymore

            Like you assuming they are legal.

          • iksnilol

            Again, logical fallacy. You came with the claim that they’re illegal and you’ve produced no evidence. And since there’s no evidence of it being illegal, you can’t really disprove it, since there’s nothing to work with. By your logic everything is illegal until the opposite is proven true, which is a messed up worldview IMO, and extremely authoritarian. You sure you’re American? You sound more like somebody from NK to me.

            You also mention a book that “isn’t online”, because it’s a “real book”, funny thing about is that no legal archives or archives in general mention any such book. BTW, it’s the 4th Geneva convention that mentions troops needing to wear distinctive uniforms (you mentioned earlier about the “sound moderator” ban being close to a section on what separates regular troops and guerilla troops).

          • claymore

            Bye Bye now

          • iksnilol

            WATER IS ILLEGAL, YOU CAN’T PROVE IT ISN’T, YOU SICK CHEESE GRATER!

          • Ron

            You are attempting to prove your point by asking people to prove a negative, also know as argument from ignorance.
            You claim something is illegal but are unable to cite that it is illegal, so instead you just keep telling people to prove it is not illegal. Since there is no law against it, it is impossible to prove it is not illegal.

          • Ron

            Yes fictitious laws and figments of your imagination are beyond everyone here’s comprehension

          • Ron

            I remember in 03 when we used Mk77 flame bombs on the Iraqi Army and in 04 when we used WP on the insurgents in Fallujah the same mindless babble come up from the bed wetting class about it being a war crime, and the same international foaming at the mouth occurred and in the end nothing happen and both weapons still were used after all the noise put out by the completely illinformed experts.
            The bottom line is there is no prohibition and, Mr Walters has cited JAG opinions numerous times that there is no prohibition.
            Either cite the statues and if they US ratified, ratified with reservations or rejected them or don’t. If you don’t it just shows everyone you are wrong and don’t have the character to admit you are wrong.

          • Ron

            Since I have used them on people, sure. Because it is a non-issue.

          • claymore

            No it isn’t the world court is ALREADY building cases against some of our pilots using munitions in Syria.

          • iksnilol

            You bludgeoned somebody with a suppressor?

            Good God, I know budgets are tight but there has to be a line to draw somewhere.

          • claymore

            And you have not yet said WHY they issued this proclamation. IF there was no conflict there would be no reason to investigate the matter right?

          • n0truscotsman

            jesus christ.

            You’re bringing up the whole ‘omg, its a conspiracy to violate the law of war’ again!? after you were so soundly and ruthlessly crushed and bludgeoned with facts and reason the last time you engaged in a online slap match over open tip match ammunition?

            Do continue… (*LOL*)

          • claymore

            AH dude what is your problem no little kids to kick around today. So YOU tell me WHY they issued this ruling if there was no conflict as you try and fail to suggest.

          • claymore

            The military law establishments do not go around spending money and staff hours in one giant waste of money to investigate and issue advisories if there was NO ISSUE to investigate.

          • Ron

            Yes they do, I managed 2 programs when I was assigned to the Pentagon and part of the coordination page was a section for Commandant’s legal to put comments.

          • claymore

            Right and you investigated black boots are best or are brown one illegal right. No conflict no guidance or investigation necessary. There had to be some smart lawyer, who knows the law better than you, that said “we can’t do this” or there would be no reason to do it.

          • claymore

            Looks like the whole subject matter is beyond your comprehension levels. Better bone up on Law.

          • n0truscotsman

            And you better read up on the citations Daniel E Watters provided for you above and let it sink in, before jumping up my buttocks about anything remotely related to my reading comprehension.

            “The military law establishments do not go around spending money and staff hours in one giant waste of money to investigate and issue
            advisories if there was NO ISSUE to investigate.”

            I dont understand your argument. Is JAG supposed to investigate legalities like this or not? Yes or no?

            And the question, IMO, was already answered above: it had to be addressed because of common misconceptions/misunderstandings about law and barracks lawyer rumor-mongering. After all, that *IS* why there’s a JAG to begin with.

          • claymore

            JAG does investigate things where there is a legal issued involved just like this case. no JAG doesn’t give a crap on wasting time on Barracks rumors.

          • Unfortunately, Dunning-Kruger also effects officers just as much the enlisted. Take for instance, a Marine Brigadier General informed Force Recon that they wouldn’t able to use their MP5SD if they were deployed to Kuwait during Desert Storm. The BG mistakenly believed that “silencers are illegal.” W. Hays Parks then shot out a memo to US Central Command to correct this.

            More recently, there was a case in Iraq in January 2006 in which a civilian contractor and supply sergeant refused to distribute M118LR to 4th Infantry Division snipers because it was “illegal” hollow-point ammunition. One of the snipers, Sgt. Arthur J. Hushen, tried to get the Brigade Judge Advocate, Major Mary Card to intervene. At first, Maj. Card refused to help, leading Sgt. Hushen to request documentation from the Lightfighter forums. LCDR Gary Roberts (USNR) and LTC Dave Liwanag (the commander of the US Army Marksmanship Unit) were among those who raised a posse and rode to the rescue. At the time, LTC Liwanag mentioned that the delivery of Mk 262 to the 3rd ID’s Squad Designated Marksmen (SDM) had been blocked in a related incident. Ultimately, Maj. Card was corrected and forced to act, but Sgt. Hushen faced retaliation in return.

          • Ron

            It is part of the normal procurement/programatics to have a legal review.

          • claymore

            IF there is a conflict there is a REASON TO HAVE A REVIEW if there isn’t then there is no need to even have a review. And suppressors have been purchased prior to this where was the review then? Suppressors have been around for a hundred years and they work well so why hasn’t there been open use of them by any state army in history????? Because they are prohibited.

          • Ron

            That is honestly the one stupidest thing I have read and I deal with LCpls and Lt everyday at work.

            There is no prohibition against using suppressors, US forces have been using them in combat since Vietnam, until the GWOT technology was such that they were not light enough, did not provide significant reduction in firing signature, nor durable enough for long term usage.

            Commanders and procurement officials often did not even think of them as an option because all they knew of them is what they saw in movies.

          • claymore

            No they haven’t been used OPENLY try some READING for a change. Yes suppressor have been used CLANDESTINELY, mostly by Special Forces troops, in DENIED AREAS with all markings removed. NOT OPENLY CARRIED.

            Right you really think the old suppressor were not good then why were they USED? BUT NOT OPENLY.

          • Ron

            I was issued a suppressor as a MITT team leader in Iraq in 05-06. My scout snipers got them in 08 and they were using them in southern AFG, when we fielded Mk12s those were always used with suppressors and that is where the Marine Corps saw it should start mass fielding.
            All this was done in the open and guess what only ignorant would have thought it was illegal and only the stupid would persist saying so after they have been correct multiple times.

          • claymore

            And just because you used them does NOT make them legal and NOBODY including you has posted anything TRUE related to this case.

          • Ron

            Honestly are you just blathering on just to just blather on, or can you just not admit you are were wrong?
            You said they were not openly used the very fact they are and have been for going on 10 years proves your contention is wrong.

          • claymore

            Just because they were used in some case still doesn’t make them legal. Can you reply like an adult and make your points without the BS?

          • Ron

            Well stop blather on about a point everyone knows you are wrong.

            It is not some “case” all new precision rifles now come with them, they have been used in the open for over 10 years. Just man up and just say you are wrong.

          • claymore

            Not wrong bye troll. Try and grow up and post like a Marine like you claim.

          • Ron

            Most Marine would have smashed you in the face and said, stupid should be painful.

          • claymore

            How about sticking to adult replies instead of resorting to trolling and name calling? Just because YOU are ignorant of the law doesn’t make everybody else stupid.

          • Ron

            How about, stop spouting BS and just admit you don’t know what you don’t know.
            ALL procurement requires a legal review, all munitions and weapon do get a JAG review prior to fielding. Since you obviously did not know that you are just offer an ignorant opinion.

          • claymore

            Yea and the legal review is issued when there is a CONFLICT. And JAG ADVICE is just that advice there is no force of law behind it. It is simply THEIR OPINION and with all case when lawyers are involved their are always another lawyer with the EXACT OPPOSITE OPINION.

            OK show us the reviews for suppressors bought in the Vietnam era or early in GWOT . You can’t because there aren’t any.

            Maybe if you weren’t a pouge and had some “skin in the game” you might be a bit more realistic and adult like in your responses.

          • iksnilol

            au contraire, comrade, in this case you’re ignorant on the law.

          • Ron

            Have you ever been in the chop chain for any military programs procurement? It is standard practice, it happens on everything no matter what.

          • claymore

            Like I said suppressors have been purchased before and no guidance was promulgated. Nice try. But if there are no legal conflicts there is still no need.

          • As Ron as stated, it has been the DOD’s standard procedure since 1974 for JAG to review the legality of all service weapons.

          • claymore

            Yea and if they were legal there would be no need for continuing investigation

        • FWIW: I’ve found more of what appears to be the 1995 memo. While the first page is missing from my copy, it appears to have been part of the legal review for the Offensive Handgun Weapon System. The date would place its publication just prior to the production award for the HK Mk 23 Mod 0.

          Parks tackled three potential objections. First, the “unneccessary suffering” prohibition was dismissed as a suppressed weapon would not cause wounds any worse than its unsuppressed equivalent. Second, the Hague requirement for “warning” was aimed more at allowing civilians to flee a populated area before a bombardment was initiated. As stated above, there is no requirement for warning individual combatants. The third issue was the potential use in illegal assassinations. As any legal weapon could potentially be used to commit an illegal act, the objection was considered moot.

          • claymore

            The prohibition is an OLD one probably since the first world war when these meeting were held. They reference “Sound Moderators” that is the term they use and define and prohibit.

            It is in a section on the rules for warfare just before or after the section the describes what makes a regular army person as opposed to a “guerilla or irregular” army. In that section they describe what a regular army must have it terms like, must carry arms openly, they must wear distinctive uniforms, clearly visible markings and insignia and visible rank markings.

            The section on sound moderators (their nomenclature) was just before or after that section. And they are in an actual BOOK as opposed to online.

          • That book would be public domain now, and as such should have been captured by the Google Books/Hathi Trust library collection scanning project. It also seems strange that a variety of law school and humanitarian websites (like the International Committee of the Red Cross) would not have already republished it, as they have other aspects related to the Hague Accords, Geneva Conventions, and other aspects of international humanitarian law.

  • jono102

    It would be interesting to see the same thing run through at night. Didn’t realize how safety heavy the Marines are for live firing.

    • Ron

      That is ITX at 29 Palms, the Marines in Orange are controls aka coyotes

      • jono102

        That probably explains it. We have about the same Safety to Soldier ratio’s but don’t make so much use of Orange vests for safety staff and generally as a rule won’t put it onto participants especially at the trained soldier level.

  • valorius

    That could work, but it’s even more weight and bulk and expense.

    Remember the whole rationale behind the M4 was to reduce weight and length. This silencer silliness entirely defeats that purpose.

    • n0truscotsman

      “This silencer silliness entirely defeats that purpose.”

      NO it doesnt. The benefits of an adjustable stock dont go away, and neither does the modularity.

      furthermore, the improved ease of use, recoil benefit, and muzzle flash suppression are significant improvements.

      For crying out loud. can the suppressor ignorant here demonstrate they have at least a couple of neurons buzzing around upstairs?

      • iksnilol

        If they could, they wouldn’t be suppressor ignorant 😉

  • valorius

    A lot of troops still prefer the M14. In fact the US Army started re-issuing them to SDM’s during the GWOT because even they realized the M14 still has a role.

    The M14 is an outstanding weapon.

    • n0truscotsman

      The M14 is a mediocre, 1930s holdover that should never have seen service. How anybody could defend it nowadays with what evidence is available about its performance is beyond me.

    • iksnilol

      Yeah, if you think that something that weighs more than a PKM, has the accuracy of a borderline scrapped M4, is almost longer than a Mosin and the reliability of a ‘Nam era M16 is a great weapon… then, I’ve got no words.

      They only reissued M14s due to having them in store already, cheap. They’re luckily being replaced by M110’s and whatnot.

      • valorius

        The M14/21/25 platform is an extremely accurate rifle. Which is why it was brought back as an SDM weapon.

        • iksnilol

          The M14 is mediocre at best when it loosens up which doesn’t take much.

          And still, the M14s curremt use is nothing but a stop gap measure until they can get more real rifles.

          • valorius

            I know a lot of infantrymen who would go to blows with you over that statement, especially the old timers. LOL.

          • iksnilol

            Yeah, the old timers, aka the ones that are at best desk jockeys now.

          • valorius

            No, the ones that fought the insurgency in Iraq. The ones that were issued M14s as SDM weapons.

          • iksnilol

            My point still stands, there’s a reason it is getting phased out. Several actually.

          • valorius

            It’s not being phased out. Or rather, it’s not being any more phased out than it has been for the last 50 years. They just modernized it in the past few years.

          • iksnilol

            its definitely getting phased out. it was an interim solution, nothing more, nothing less.

          • valorius

            A 50 year and counting interim solution. The M14 has recently been modernized (Mk14 EBR) and is still in service in four versions. It’s not going anywhere in the next 2 decades, at least.

          • iksnilol

            you mean was taken out of service 5 years after it was introduced, then it was reintroduced as an interim solution until they could get real DMRs.

          • valorius

            The Mk14 will be in service for decades. Just like the M14, M21 and M25 still are.

          • iksnilol

            I doubt those are used as much as you think they are.

            It’s just that they have yet to completely get rid of them so technically they’re still serving.

          • valorius

            M14’s are used every day all over the world. They’re the no.1 choice of D&C teams. And probably will be for another 100 years. The US Navy loves them, and still uses them for shipboard security to this day.

            The M21 and M25 are sniper rifles, and both are still in front line use today. The M21 by the Army, and the M25 by the USN.

            I suspect all variants will continue on in service until ray guns are eventually fielded.

            The M14 first entered service in 1957, and has been in US Military service continuously for 59 years.

          • iksnilol

            You really are optimistic about it. The M14 doesn’t really have a good rep as you think it does.

            I mean, I’ve found few people to be happy with it in recent times from the stuff I’ve read. And back when it just came out shoddy production also harmed its rep.

          • valorius

            BTW, as of today:

            “Since 2010, the U.S. Army has made available two M14 EBR-RI rifles per infantry platoon for units deploying to Afghanistan.
            The M14 EBR-RI has a standard weight 22.0-inch (560 mm) barrel and
            lugged GI flash hider; it is not to be confused with the Mk 14 Mod 0 or
            Mod 1.”

            So it looks like there are actually FIVE versions of the M14 still in service.

  • valorius

    Last i’d heard, and i admit i have not followed it in recent years, the MV-22 had to ditch the defensive turret.

    I do agree there is no comparison to the range and speed of an MV-22 unit to that of a helo based unit, but it does introduce other problems. Like, how do you escort them? Helos can’t keep up or fly far enough, and fast as the Osprey is, my understanding is that it’s still to slow for fixed wing birds.

    The MV-22 is also a big honking target that has no capability to auto-rotate. My sister was a UH-60 medevac pilot in A-stan and Iraq. In conversations we’ve had she’s stressed that if you lose an engine in an MV-22 you’re well and truly fked.

    • Ron

      The belly gun is not a turret per say, when it drops down it is more like the gun on a AH-1 or 64. Most of the time it is not flown with because it eats 4 troop space in the aircraft. But the last MEU I went out brought them along and used them one time during Kuwaiti sustainment training.

      Its mission profile is such that it does not need an armed escort except on the ingress to the LZ because it get above normal small-medium arms range and move so fast that standard AH defense of a CH-46 type drill is not required. You normally have fixed wing do the hot-cold call on the LZ, and if required drop PGMs on targets.
      It cannot autorotate (but it can somewhat fly/glide) but both engines run through transmissions that allow one engine to power both props and there have been single engine landings with it.

  • valorius

    A bullet makes a very distinct sound as it whizzes by.

  • NukeItFromOrbit

    Congrats on making the M4 the same length and weight as the M16 it replaced.

    Better off if that money was spent getting the M27 IAR a higher capacity magazine.

    • jono102

      So making it heavier?

  • A Fascist Corgi

    Yet another reminder of why bullpups are superior.

    The line of reasoning in your blog entries is also really inconsistent. You argue that weight, expense, and increased barrel length makes a more capable long-range assault rifle impractical, yet you don’t seem to have a problem with the military adopting suppressors even though it adds weight, expense, and barrel length.

  • Tom Tom

    I didn’t get the combat experience but I can’t imagine how guys could function well in a fire fight with ear plugs since it’s hard enough anyways given the circumstances.. this could go a long way to answer the communication problems.
    m16 rounds themselves are horribly loud you know. I once worked in the target pits at a rifle Match. Those rounds hurt my ears enough going over my head 12′ above down in the trench I had to use plugs. That surprised even me.

  • Oliver BombDog

    I’m actually part of 1/2 and they only suppressed the m4s and it did not go very well. And for those saying we are being issued active hearing pro, it’s actually pretty hit or miss if we get issued foamies, we absolutely are not being issued electronic ear pro.

    • Ron

      Trust me, it probably on your BN CO’s MAL and being held by the S6, but are probably still new in box sitting there because your leadership does know half the gear they have.

  • Paul Labrador

    And they think they have issues with carbon clogged rifles now…… ;o)

  • valorius

    This thread has brought out every mall ninja on TFB.

  • Brad Ferguson

    It would be a great piece of kit to have because, their are times it’s mighty handy. Only 2 other things come to mind……First I hope the don’t require the rifle to be suppressed, all of the time. Second and most importantly is. . . . .When you add a suppresser to a M4, and if it’s only 6″ long. It pushes the barrel length out to 22″, not very handy when you’re having to clear houses.

  • moecehpus

    I can see the benefit for small unit vocal command and control but I am not too sure overall. Most fire is not really effective, it works to suppress the enemy by noise. In tests (1977 or so) the army found that the larger the caliber the more suppressive the fire. Hearing loss? You lose hearing in close combat from a lot more than just small arms. Your ears can numb out in a fire fight of course and the ability to hear the enemy in some cases might be paramount. Personally I think this is one that needs to be worked out in practice and I will reserve judgement until its proven in the field.