The Silencing Continues: US SOCOM Restarts Suppressor Upper Receiver Group Upgrade Program for M4A1

The US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) has revised its solicitation for the Suppressor Upper Receiver Ground (SURG) program (via FBO.gov). The SURG program is intended to provide an upper receiver for the M4A1 Carbine which would be designed for continuous suppressed use. Last year, SOCOM released the initial solicitation, but some of the original requirements were apparently too difficult for the industry to meet. The new SURG requirements are supposedly more in-line with the industry’s capabilities at the moment, which means we might be able to expect a new SURG upper receiver to be selected in the near future.

Earlier this year, the US Marine Corps’ 2nd Division conducted an experiment with an all-suppressed infantry battalion, which revealed the substantial benefit that suppressed weapons bring to the battlefield. Communication and hearing of commands were greatly enhanced, shooter accuracy and precision was enhanced (due to lower noise disrupting the shooter), and overall fire discipline was improved. There seems to be no question now that whichever country can solve the problem of creating a suppressor light enough and durable enough for use with the infantry will gain a huge advantage in effectiveness.

The question isn’t if it will happen, but who will cross that finish line first!

H/T, soldiersystems.net



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 is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at [email protected]


Advertisement

  • Sid Collins

    As a representative of the previous generations of infantrymen, I have a prepared statement to present on their behalf:

    WHAT?

    • iksnilol

      I CAN’T HEAR YOU, WHAT’D YOU SAY?

      • B-Sabre

        THERE’S A PROBLEM WITH THE PAY?!?!?

    • valorius

      One fine evening on a MOUT field problem i fired about 600rds of 7.62mm blank ammo from an M60 machine gun in a 10×10 room. I am sure that episode is partially responsible for the crappy hearing i’ve been saddled with as I’ve gotten older.

      • John

        They didn’t have any earplugs to give you?

        • valorius

          You need to be able to hear not just your squad mates and orders, but also the sounds of OPFOR approaching.

          • KestrelBike

            Obviously given the topic of the thread we’re in, [military] attitudes might be changing in terms of trying to protect troops’ hearing health.

            However, back in your day, what was the general consensus? Was it just “Well, it sucks that we’re gonna go deaf probably, but it is what it is and this is our job.”?

          • Gary Kirk

            Don’t know where you’re going there? But in my day, we didn’t always have time to Don the foam plugs we were given before contact..

          • Phillip Cooper

            And of course someone will come along saying that we should just have worn them 24/7.

            Nope. They interfere too much with C3, and don’t even try to call over the radio with them on.

            Not to mention, try running movement to contact drills with them. Next thing you know ALL you can hear is your own breathing and heart pounding under your burden, which is a crappy feedback loop that just makes you more tired.

          • valorius

            Since there was no real alternative, it was just part of the job.

            The best option today is the electronic earplugs the US military is issuing to the troops. Not suppressors.

          • 2805662

            Disagree. Speaking as someone with reasonable military experience with both – suppressors are the way to go.

          • valorius

            So you want to suppress general purpose machine guns? Troops are supposed to carry around 6 foot long pikes? How about SAWs? How about SDM rifles?

            How do you suppress a rocket launcher? A grenade launcher? A 60mm mortar?

            Active hearing protection is clearly the way to go. Suppressors are a stupid idea IMO.

          • 2805662

            General Purpose Machine Guns – absolutely yes. Having put thousands of rounds through suppressed M240 & MAG58, there’s no issue. SAW? Yep. Been there, done that.

            The rest? Of course not.

            At least suppressors don’t have batteries that go flat. It’s also not an either/or. Some western armies are issuing both.

          • valorius

            I really dont think making an M240 any heavier or bulkier than it already is makes any sense whatsoever. And because you don’t want to carry an extra battery that’s smaller than a pea? o.O

            Here’s an idea: If you want rifles to be quieter, put a 20″ barrel back on them.

          • 2805662

            Electronic hearing protection is also pretty handy at reducing muzzle flash & dust, I guess? Makes it difficult for the enemy to localise friendly firing positions, too?

            You’re only considering the implications at the firer’s end.

            160dB of a 20″ barrel is still pretty loud…

          • valorius

            A 20″ barrel is handy at reducing muzzle flash and dust…and it makes the bullet fly faster, farther and flatter.

          • Phillip Cooper

            As we discussed last time this came up…

            Suppress everything you reasonably can. If course you can’t suppress explosions, rockets, etc. But otherwise, suppress everything you reasonably can.

            By the time the Heavy MGs light up, the enemy has either found you, or will shortly.

            Suppression will assist on fronts both tactical and aural. That’s AURAL, not oral, damnit. 🙂

            Honestly, depending on the size of the element you’re ambushing, suppressors may well remove the need for the MGs to light off in the first place. Wouldn’t work for large units, but for patrols it would certainly help.

            It’s not about solving all the noise problems- war is loud, and we’re not exactly going to supply the OPFOR with suppressors. It’s about tactical advantage first of all, and everything else is bonus.

          • valorius

            I agree its’ fine for patrols, SPECOPS, raiding forces etc. But as an infantry wide addition to me it’s just tacticool foolishness.

          • roguetechie

            I disagree with you and the other guy who replied to you LOL

            The best option is BOTH because even if you have suppressors you still need ear pro for things blowing up and outgoing fire from things like Bradley chain guns etc

          • valorius

            The M4 was sold to us because “It’s light and handy.” Slap a suppressor on it, and it’s no longer light or handy. You might as well have an M16 with it’s superior ballistics.

          • roguetechie

            Except with the newer ammunition the ballistics gap has been closed to a satisfactory degree.

            Not to mention the suppressor I’m advocating for is very short and almost ridiculously light. Mounted to a 14.5 inch barrel in lieu of it’s bird cage flash hider still puts it at well under the length of a 20 inch bbl assembly with it’s respective bird cage FH.

          • valorius

            Ammunition that’s so satisfactory they had to redesign the ammunition to the tune of billions of dollars, and we now have a round that wears out feed ramps?

            I’ll take the 1oz electronic earplugs and a 20″ M16 for $1000, Alex.

          • Sid Collins

            There was no real alternative back in the late ’80s. Ear plugs were reserved for range firing. In maneuver operations (especially light infantry – dismounted movement), hearing the discrete noise was very necessary. That is why it is called “noise and light discipline”. We did not wear ear plugs because we had to hear. It was just assumed that your hearing would degrade over time and you protected your hearing when not actually needed for maneuver.

          • Phillip Cooper

            In my (Army) Battalion, yeah, that was the idea. Better to be old and deaf as a stone than hear fine and dead because the enemy got the drop on you….

          • valorius

            Well put.

          • Mattblum

            I’m Vietnam era. Blew the knee in college and that was that. However, I’ve talked to a lot of guys just back from the sandbox and that was still the consensus in desert storm. I gather they have good valves these days.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Desert Storm was my era.

            Thanks for your service, sir.

      • Widgt

        I did a similar thing at the ‘European’ mout site at Hohenfels. We met the opfor in the sewer and I let go with the 60. Holy crap that was loud.

        • Rockdoc173

          Hohenfels? I spent a little time there. Crap that place was cold!

    • Gary Kirk

      RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII……..
      IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNGGG.. For the ever loving rest of your life.

    • Phillip Cooper

      Well said, brother.

      NOW WTF DID YOU SAY, I COULDN’T HEAR YOU….

  • Sid Collins

    The word “Suppressor” is misspelled in the header of every page in the original solicitation document. Gives me a boost of confidence in the management of the program.

  • Uniform223
    • Gary Kirk

      Always love the suppressed M4 with an M203.. So you can be quiet, but when you need to get loud, you can get really loud..

      • valorius

        It’s dumbassery at it’s finest.

        • iksnilol

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2e14d49b1fa43747c0fd3cc1b55490f6c6772b0f983a55c1cb187eb5727e8a85.jpg

          But yeah, underslung grenade launchers are pretty stupid. Suppressors on the other hand are very useful.

          • NukeItFromOrbit

            In most infantry (non special-forces) scenarios a UGL is more useful than a suppressor.

          • iksnilol

            Meh, a standalone weighs less, gets less in the way and doesn’t mess with your rifle.

            A suppressor is useful every time you fire a shot.

          • jono102

            If anything a stand alone adds more weight to what a grenadier would carry. Most rifle systems like the 416 use built in proprietary attachment methods or standard rails, so the stock and stand alone mount for a 40mm launcher are adding additional weight. From an Infantry perspective, I’d always carry a UGL over a stand alone for everything apart from Less Lethal or in a fixed location like a COP/FOB where it can be left at a sentry/security location for use. Soldiers already have enough crap suspended or strapped from them especially light infantry or Recce elements

          • iksnilol

            The weight difference isn’t that big. Bulky quadrails to mount the UGL do add weight as well, where otherwise you could use a lightweight Mlok rail.

            That, and the standalone is more accurate and doesn’t weigh down your rifle. (kinda silly to have a lightweight rifle then bag it down with 50% extra weight due to an UGL).

          • jono102

            The only stand alone’s that have ever been that much more accurate was the M79 and that was due to the large sighting system and it ease of aiming. It came at a cost of a bulky item that required to be carried/stowed on top of everything else. I relished the day we got rid of or 79’s for 203’s and at minimal loss of capability. Most stand alone’s these days use the exact same sights as the UGL’s so it more a lack of ability in application of marksmanship.
            The requirements of a soldier operating in the likes of Urban or jungle i.e. patrolling, crawling, in and out of platforms, an extra bit of weight is nothing on a rifle compared to having the same weight and added mass/item hanging off his side. This is on top of the pack straps, rifle slings and comm’s wires he’s all ready dealing with.
            Quad rails weigh stuff all and Mlok is irrelevant until its rated or proven to support a UGL on firing, and explains why they are still so common with military’s.

            Compare soldiers with UGL’s versus stand alone’s conduct fire and maneuver and the advantages of a UGL become very apparent….Not silly at all, just like the use of suppressors.

          • Phillip Cooper

            The only “messing with the rifle” the UGL ever did for me in 88-94 was.. it made me more accurate in the prone. I’ll take it.

          • iksnilol

            So hanging 50% of your rifle weight extra in front of your rifle doesn’t make a difference to you in regards to carrying the damn thing?

          • milesfortis

            It never was a problem with me. At my first opportunity, I stuck a 203 on my rifle. I wanted that extra firepower.

          • Phillip Cooper

            Yeah it sucked- none the least having to carry the extra ammo- but having the extra capability and the extra weight on the business end of the rifle had its uses.

            For one, I shot MUCH better with the 203 system in the prone unsupported than I did with the standard M16A2. Even when severely hungover (but that is another story)…

          • iksnilol

            What about standing or from the knee? I like shooting from prone, but that is definitely the easiest way to shoot.

          • Phillip Cooper

            In my experience I shot better with it in all instances, as compared to a standard M16A2.

            This was near 30 years ago. I would not expect the same to be true today. 🙂

          • iksnilol

            then why were you so specific about mentioning from the prone.

          • Phillip Cooper

            The difference was most marked. Also, qualifications were shot from the prone unsupported and from a fighting position (foxhole).

          • Phillip Cooper

            Please explain why UGL are not a wise choice.

            Granted it’s more crap to carry… but it’s more crap that goes book and gives you an option for area effect over point effect. To say nothing og the GM that are coming down the pipe for them.

          • iksnilol

            Because compared to a stand alone it’s awkward (how you have to stretch your arm and hold underneath), and it adds a bunch of dead weight to your rifle the 99.5% of the time you ain’t using the grenade launcher.

          • jono102

            So 99.5% of the time you want to have a stand alone hanging off you?
            Stretch my arm to hold it, Never had an issue with various UGL’s on a variety of conventional and bullpup rifles. The flexibility for firing one than the other without stuffing around with transitioning between weapons, messing with slings etc is a massive advantage especially with a pack or ruck or during various infil methods.

        • Phillip Cooper

          Well, no.
          You’d be surprised how quiet a 203 is on the operator’s end.

          Now, the business end, yeah. LAF.

          • valorius

            The M203 is by no means a quiet weapon. I know this because i was issued one.

          • Phillip Cooper

            I carried one for a bit as well. It never seemed quiet, I agree– but the “bloop” sure didn’t seem as loud as one would expect for a large grenade being shoved through the air.

            Isn’t there some sort of low pressure chicanery going on with the 203 rounds? There’s a reason they have the vents around the base, and are not usable in the MK19 (and vice versa)…

          • valorius

            The Mk19 uses high pressure ammunition with approx triple the muzzle velocity. I couldn’t find the propellant charge for Mk19 ammo listed with a quick search, but most likely it’s about triple that of standard low pressure 40mm ammo.

    • That is a quick-detach suppressor on a different contract.

      • roguetechie

        I wonder if Delta P will enter the brevis 2 or another offering that’s even more interesting. In a way their offerings seem to be exactly what the program wants to buy since they’re engineered to outlive the barrels they’re mounted on and for absolutely brutal use cases.

        I’d kinda like to see a delta P reflex suppressor made along the lines of the brevis 2 with enough of a gap between barrel and the portion of suppressor over it.

        Especially if they could get it to serve as a bore evacuator / Lewis gun shroud style forced air ventilation… Combined with an M16k style gas tube to delay unlocking just long enough so that as your extraction and ejection cycle starts you get a strong suction event facilitating the forced air cooling and bore evacuation.

        But that’s just me and I’m way overthinking it

        • Not a chance, that thing sucks balls. No way in hell a 3D printed Ti Alloy suppressor is making it into the military. The Brevis is still in prototype stage no matter what anyone says. That design has A LOT of room for improvement.

          • roguetechie

            Define exactly why it sucks please, especially since there are people who live and fie by it apparently buying them / they’re the only suppressor I know of which can take the sustained high fire rate high round count beating of a mk18 for at least the life of two barrels.

            Also bear in mind that as it is now it’s not much larger and I think actually lighter than an xm177 suppressor.

            Delta P makes no bones about it not being hearing safe.

            However, this is why I sketched out a “revised product” which if done right would make for a crazy good weapons system.

        • Rob

          The Brevis is not an upper receiver group. Furthermore, it needs to be able to fire with minimal drain time from water. Direct impingement is out. While a folding stock is not a requirement it is listed as a desire. Looks like SOCOM is gunning for an MCX.

          • roguetechie

            I didn’t read the solicitation, just the article.

            TBH I was just taking a break from working on a design for a $250 Holmes style 5.45 tube gun AR like build of a crackerjack 450-500 meter suburban warfare carbine build able using 3d printed consumable jigs and a 9×20 engine lathe with a milling attachment.

            This project also involves lots of stuff like grade 8 bolts and a few springs and such whatnot actually meant for firearms.

            It’s kinda just a fun intellectual exercise to see if it could be done.

          • Stephen Paraski

            That is my kind of spare time fun.

          • roguetechie

            It really is fun, and since parts kits are so expensive now, I’m glad I bought and built tools and learned how to use them…

            Thank God for CNC though because I kinda suck at doing stuff by hand.

    • roguetechie

      DUDE!!!

      The sand colored suppressed rifle in the middle almost looks like it’s sporting a JJFU Aerosonic suppressor…

      I haven’t followed the news on that thing and whether or not it’s anything but trash, but if that’s an aerosonic in the field I’d kinda feel compelled to do some research.

      • Raven

        I think that’s an M110, so that’s probably the KAC suppressor with some kind of muzzle cover on it.

        • roguetechie

          Oh good!!!

          Something about the angle etc really did make it look like Jesse’s magical space gourd.

    • Would any riflehumper outside of a special forces unit even be allowed to use non-issued accessories which require removing issued parts of the carbine? That doesn’t look like it’s attached over the top of a flash hider.

      • Gary Kirk

        Gemtech..

      • Sid Collins

        Officially, no. Unit discipline varies. When painting of issued weapons was authorized, it was left to the CoC of each unit to decide. At that point, it becomes a matter of risk to each unit property book holder. Forward deployed commanders may be willing to allow more risk, but I would not think that home station units would allow it.

  • Gregory

    Here is an idea, trash the entire M16/M4 series and adopt the AK series of guns with needed upgrades. Let’s see, use a weapon that is more reliable, less dependent on cleaning and cheaper to build, how foolish is that?

    • valorius

      The AK is not more reliable than the M4. In fact, in heavy dust and mud environments the AR is a far superior sealed action design.

      • Swwaaat?

        And in sub-zero temperatures the only actions that work are AK family. Alaska State Troopers did some serious testing and the only ones that functioned in that level of cold were the AK family (Valmets, Galils and AK74Ms). ARs/M4s, FALs, HK91s, etc. all froze up (literally). The ARs, IIRC, couldn’t even toggle from safe to fire.

        That being said, both designs are great and reliable in the vast majority of environments. Though in some, one is better than the other.

        Quit oversimplifying and overlooking all of the variables. You remind me of CNN.

        • CommonSense23

          Yeah, that’s old data. You can run AR15s in sub zero with ease. It’s called knowing how to maintain your gun. How you lubricate your weapon is entirely dependent on location and what you are doing. Cold weather, ain’t hosing it down with CLP. At the range and going to have a lot of high speed sustained firing. Time to break at the spray bottles and hose that bad boy down.

          • valorius

            Those urban (or arctic) legends are hard to kill.

        • valorius

          At the US Army arctic warfare school in Alaska US Troops all use M16 pattern rifles.

        • noob

          AK Troopers carrying AKs? nice

        • Gary Kirk

          The only thing the AK has over the AR in arctic conditions is it doesn’t have aperture sights..

      • roguetechie

        It’s also more expensive BY FAR to build, especially paying western prices for labor!

        Why do you think that all US made AK’s cost $100-$150 more for an entry level gun, and that’s with them using inferior materials and shoddy workmanship…

    • RSG

      Modern warfare that is fought at average distances greater than 500 meters does NOT favor the 🌈 shooting AK.

    • Anonymoose
      • iksnilol

        Ay blyin.

    • Mark

      The Slavboo AK worshippers are some of the saddest most cringeworthy people on earth. Right up there with grown men who play with MLP plushies.

      • mcjagermech

        idk, the Wheraboos give the AK fanboys a run for their money

        • Porty1119

          Are we talking Mauser fanboys here?

          • mcjagermech

            or any rabid fanboys of WW2 german military technology

          • Stephen Paraski

            Roller lockers

    • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

      I thought the AR platform was an AK with all the “needed upgrades”

      • Stephen Paraski

        2 ends of spectrum. 1 precision machined good grade aluminium, other forged and hardened steel.

    • CommonSense23

      You have never actually dealt with AKs have you. Like dealing with 100s of that at a time.

    • Porty1119

      Oh boy, do you have some mud/grit test videos to watch…

      • valorius

        In Range TV’s mud/sand tests of the AR and AK immediately re-wrote a lot of urban legends.

        • CommonSense23

          While those were just awesome. There are some excellent ones by Mike Pannone and Andrew Tuohy which using slow more are awesome for showing how the gas system literally blows debris off the bolt carrier.

          • valorius

            Is that the name of their channel? I’d like to check those out.

          • CommonSense23

            The name of the YouTube channel is Vuurwapenblog

          • valorius

            Thanks i’ll definitely check that out.

          • noob

            I also highly recommend the videos of Andrew Tuohy’s alter ego RICK TAYLOR THE GREATEST TACTICAL INSTRUCTOR IN THE WORLD.

          • valorius

            Is that a you tube channel?

          • noob

            It’s a series of videos on Andrew’s main channel.

          • valorius

            Subscribed. Thanks.

        • Porty1119

          They made brisket out of quite a few sacred cows.

    • Uniform223

      Ever had to “mortar” an AK type rifle? Do that first then come back to us about its “legendary” reliability? Also I’ve seen a lot of soldiers and conscripts clean their AKMs. If they didn’t need to be cleaned why have them do it? Ask ANYONE and they will tell you that no matter the firearm it needs to be cleaned at some point.

      • Audie Bakerson

        “no matter the firearm it needs to be cleaned at some point.” Liberator will break before it needs cleaning

      • roguetechie

        I’ve had to kick start an AK or two
        … So yeah….

    • SP mclaughlin

      This is bait.

    • roguetechie

      Except of course that it’s literally NONE OF THESE THINGS….

    • DonDrapersAcidTrip

      Someone help this man, he’s trapped on a gun forum circa 2003

    • Gary Kirk

      Troll level is increased +1.. continue playing..

  • valorius

    “Communication and hearing of commands were greatly enhanced, shooter
    accuracy and precision was enhanced (due to lower noise disrupting the
    shooter), and overall fire discipline was improved.”

    Pure, unmitigated nonsense.

    “There seems to be no
    question now that whichever country can solve the problem of creating a
    suppressor light enough and durable enough for use with the infantry
    will gain a huge advantage in effectiveness.”

    Were you cracking up laughing as you typed this?

    • NukeItFromOrbit

      Reads like one.

  • EdgyTrumpet

    “There seems to be no question now that whichever country can solve the
    problem of creating a suppressor light enough and durable enough for use
    with the infantry will gain a huge advantage in effectiveness.”
    Didn’t russians solve this one already?

    • No.

      • EdgyTrumpet

        СУКА

      • John

        Well, that answers that question.

    • Reef Blastbody

      You mean the Vintorez/VAL and the follow on 9X39 subsonic guns? They’re great out to ~300M, but pretty worthless beyond that as the slow, heavy bullets they fire drop like rocks after that.

      AFAIK, all the Russian integrally suppressed designs are suited for Spetsnaz type groups, and not for general infantry applications like the SURG program.

      I will say that with the potential of the HPA being signed into law (yes, I’ve called/emailed my local reps) that I can see the trickle down to the civilian market being a great boon for the shooting public.

      • EdgyTrumpet

        I meant the PBS suppressors.

  • AtomicYeti

    The real question is how effective 5.56 is at subsonic speeds. Unless they intend to use it as a “best” all around muzzle device, firing supersonics. That thing will get seriously hot.

    • They intend it to fire supersonics. That is the challenge of designing such a unit.

      • AtomicYeti

        Ok, that’s a challenge indeed. Integral suppression could take care of some problems, but create new ones at the same time.

  • Anonymoose

    Didn’t Daniel Defense say they were going to bring back their ISR in 5.56 recently, or was that someone else I’m thinking of?

    • Yeah I think you are right, that makes sense for sure anyway

  • iksnilol

    The feeling when Finland already has made a suppressor that’s cheap, short and lightweight for that specific purpose.

    • John

      OH CRAP! FINLAND IS OUR NEW WORLD POWER! OMGOMGOMG!!!!111

    • roguetechie

      You’re referring to the reflex suppressor for rk-62 / rk-95?

      Also is it rk-95 or 92? I’m very confused about that.

  • Vitor Roma

    But using a carbine lenght gas tube with supressors is a sure way of overgassing the gun. They should also upgrade to mid length to mitigate the extra pressure. But yeah, i know it makes to much sense to happen.

    • Jack

      Several ways to skin that cat. I’d assume if they’re building a dedicated suppressed upper they’ll build it with an appropriate gas system length and or gas port size. With issued gear/ammo being consistent you should be able to “tune” the gun in the design phase so you won’t have grunts messing up adjustable gas system and or getting blasted with gas face.

  • CommonSense23

    I’m really curious what exactly they are trying to gain here. The original specification made sense with growing rise of thermal optics. Throwing out the thermal requirements really isn’t offering much I feel over a modern quick attach suppressor.

    • noob

      maybe optimize the upper for reliability and reduced fouling when the suppressor is continuously fitted?

      you could achieve that a number of ways eg: going piston, coating the internals and/or using one of those backpressure-less OSS turbine suppressors.

      the key point is that the whole upper is built as a balanced system for long, trouble free operation – rather than an upper with a can on it that causes you more headaches than the regular upper with a QD can.

      • CommonSense23

        I have shot barrels out on my issued 10inch without malfunction all suppressed. With extremely infrequent cleaning. Like only due to salt water getting in the gun. With the M4A1/MK18s the only part I have had to replace regularly before their scheduled replacement to ensure proper operation was the Action Spring around 5000 rounds instead of 6000 rounds when I normally do. And that was just for sending the bolt forward. Gun still ran fine when shooting. But by cleaning the gun I can get back to 6000 with ease. With what are supposed to be the military maintenance standards. Adding a suppressor isn’t going to effect parts life currently. Until we actually start doing proper maintenance in the military. Like actually having SMEs at the squad level who can take a M4, and have the parts and training to do maintenance such as barrel swaps, replacing triggers, its not going to matter what weapon we buy.

        • KestrelBike

          Did you have to take much more additional care to not get burned by contact with the suppressor while doing maneuvers? I understand that barrels get hot too, but on most weapon systems there’s typically only a couple inches of exposed barrel that is height-isolated by handguards/front-sight blocks, with an inch or two of muzzle device. With suppressors, that’s an uninterrupted 6-8″ of insta-burn after a good string.

          • CommonSense23

            Used a suppressor cover. Worked pretty well. But would actually catch fire every once in a while.

        • milesfortis

          “Like actually having SMEs at the squad level who can take a M4, and have the parts and training to do maintenance….”

          Not that I disagree with the general idea, but CS, you know, as well as I do, that Uncle will never put the required budget into running that many people through the necessary smallarms repair training.
          Hell, the idea for two level maintenance really went nowhere near what the original plan was, and from what I read awhile back in PS, the unit armorers are going to lose all maintenance functions.

          • CommonSense23

            The problem is it doesn’t take money to do this. I taught myself how to take care of my rifle not through a school. But through going to the armory and whenever a issue came up asking the armorer to walk me thru the fix. I asked the guys for maintenance manuals. Within a year I was fixing our guns at the lowest level. Which honestly didn’t require much. 90 percent of fixes could be solved by measuring the action spring or destroying bad mags. Which I think I am ranting about what you wrote. We will never fix the problem with weapons maintenance in the military. Or general capabilities until we get out of this mind set you can’t do something or be a SME without a piece of paper.

  • A Fascist Corgi

    Didn’t you mock me when I argued that the SCAR is superior to the M4 when it came to SBRs and suppressors?

    • Vitor Roma

      I’d say that is more of a matter of adjustable > non-adjustable.

      • CommonSense23

        That doesn’t even matter. The MK18 is non adjustable and handles every round in the military no issue suppressed or unsuppresed.

    • Gary Kirk

      Left field much??

    • CommonSense23

      You are acting like people haven’t realised how to shoot with a mirage. Its not hard. And have you ever been issued a Scar?

      • A Fascist Corgi

        Have you?

        • CommonSense23

          Been issued multiple Scars actually.

          • A Fascist Corgi

            Me too. I dual wielded a SCAR-L and a SCAR-H in places that I can’t even talk about.

  • LCON

    One of the key Drivers of the First run of this was Thermal signature. There are over suits and fabrics today that can reduce a human thermal signature but a firing rifle especially suppressed is hot. So the SURG was to feature alot of thermal management tech.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/2229316e996a52bb32308f5146028f4f67ea65aa98297fa58e3338fa3177ecf6.jpg

    • NukeItFromOrbit

      Judging from the above apparently they also wanted to make it look like a Star Wars blaster.

      • B-Sabre

        ‘The designer of the gun had clearly not been instructed to beat about the bush. “Make it evil,” he’d been told. “Make it totally clear that this gun has a right end and a wrong end. Make it totally clear to anyone standing at the wrong end that things are going badly for them. If that means sticking all sort of spikes and prongs and blackened bits all over it then so be it. This is not a gun for hanging over the fireplace or sticking in the umbrella stand, it is a gun for going out and making people miserable with.”‘
        -Douglas Adams, Hitchiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

  • Capn Jack

    Too late to save my hearing, but hope for others.

    • Sid Collins

      Yep.

  • anyom

    why not copy as val?

    russian seems happy with that

    • DW

      You add a new caliber to the supply chain in addition to new gun with no parts commonality, and one that is never going supersonic.
      AS VAL family are excellent specialist weapons, but they are still niche guns.

  • The obvious solution is to make a A2 flash hider with external threads for mounting an oil filter.

  • Marc Ciurdariu

    What wrist computer is that?

    • milesfortis

      That’s a Garmin GPS

  • Osramicus

    Anybody know what the requirements were the last time they made the request? Curious what they wanted that the industry couldn’t meet.

  • B-Sabre

    “The Silencing”? Please…this is clearly “The Suppressoring”!

  • Shaun Connery Oliver II

    Arsenal Democracy(well I forgot what their new name is, but you get the picture). Don’t believe me, watch Defense Review’s interview on the SURG on YouTube.

  • roguetechie

    TBH I’m not sure, but I can ask my brother who finished his second enlistment and got out of the USMC in November.

    Also M855a1 no longer destroys feed ramps now that they came up with a revised magazine follower which still works with other flavors of 5.56.

    On the improvements side of thing I share your frustration especially considering that with a new barrel and not much else we could be getting almost m16a2 firing M193 velocity from an alternative 5.56 round design and a 10.5 inch barrel!

    Even brass cased versions of it would be lighter than M193.

    Jump to a 16 inch bbl and wooo doggy y’all might just wanna stand back because it’s about to get ugly!!!

  • valorius

    The Mk19 actually fires 40x53mm caliber ammo, it’s not just a different chamber. The M203 uses 40x46mm caliber ammo.

    • Phillip Cooper

      Seems to be correct.. and the M320 and other replacement for the M20 3 are apparently going to allow the MK19 ammo to be used. I’m curious as to the perceived recoil increase to the UBGL users.

      • valorius

        Low pressure 40x46mm kicks like a mule. Firing the 40x53mm from a shoulder fired weapon would be quite an adventure.

  • Nick

    Ringing in my ear would be greatly reduced if suppressors were on all weapons. When Dr Maxim made the suppressor he also made the car muffler. One became standard and has been ripped off of every bad ass truck and car since. One was made very restricted and has been a true wish for every riflemen since.