New Suppressors for Devil Dogs? USMC Releases RFI for Commercial Suppressors for M4, M27

US Marine Lance Cpl. Raymond Jastrzebski Jr. kneels with his M4 Carbine during exercises in Værnes, Norway. His M4 is equipped not only with an M203 grenade launcher, but a KAC NT4 suppressor. Image credit: U.S. Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Sarah N. Petrock, public domain

Suppressor manufacturers, start your engines. The United States Marine Corps Systems Command (MARSYSCOM) has issued a new request for information (RFI) to the industry regarding future suppressors for the M4 and M4A1 Carbine and M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR). The request is intended to tap potential industry partners for future suppressor production, possibly in preparation for a new contract. The RFI’s requirements are, in the usual military fashion, detailed and stringent:

At a minimum, suppressors should meet the following requirements:

1. The suppressor should be capable of detachment/attachment and disassembly/ reassembly by an operator in the field without the use of special tools for normal care and cleaning.

2. Suppressor should enable a noise level of 139 decibels or lower at either of the shooters ears.

3. Suppressor should be a design that minimizes the change in the host rifle internal operating system dynamics.

4. Suppressor may be of the over the barrel, or flush mount design and should not be longer than 20″ total barrel length (threshold), 18″ (objective).

5. Suppressor should be of the quick detachable design.  A special muzzle device may be attached (by a unit Armorer) to the OEM weapon in order to facilitate installation and removal by an operator.

6. Must be able to withstand the sustained rate of the M27 IAR (capable of a rate of fire of 36 rounds per minute for 16 minutes, 40 seconds with firing starting at ambient temperature for a 600 round load).

7. The entire suppressor and muzzle device should weigh no more than 18 oz.

8. The use of the suppressor should not increase the dispersion of each respective weapon.  It is acceptable for the weapon to experience a repeatable shift in the zero between unsuppressed and suppressed operating modes, but that shift should not exceed 3 MOA for each respective weapon.

9. The suppressed weapon should  retain its dispersion through the life of the barrel (objective of 24,000 rounds)

10. The suppressor system is not required to have an internal projectile pathway which is the usual industry standard for a 5.56mm diameter round.  The internal bullet channel may be larger than is typical of current suppressor designs.  In other words, the suppressor may be able to be employed on multiple calibers (i.e. A059 Ball, AB49, AC12, AB57 etc.) without any modification to the suppressor.  This attribute not only facilitates future caliber/weapon capabilities, but could also mitigate baffle strikes.

11. Suppressor should function with all Department of Defense Identification Code (DODIC) 5.56 mm ammunition, including A059 Ball, A063 Tracer, A080 Blank, AA33 Ball, AA53 Ball Special Match, AA69 Armor Piercing, AB49 Ball Carbine barrier, AC12 and AB57 Enhanced Performance Round.

12. Suppressor should not require permanent configuration changes to the weapon system.

13. Suppressor should not inhibit the mounting or operation of the M203 or M320 grenade launchers (objective).

14. Suppressor should not require the addition of a gas mitigating charging handle.

15. Should be able to accept a suppressor sleeve in order to reduce thermal signatures and mitigate operator burns.

16. All suppressor external surfaces should have a dull, low-reflective finish (to include pins, bolts, lanyards, sight posts, etc.).  The external color of the system should be consistent with current camouflage colors and patterns.

18. The suppressor material should be able to accept approved USMC paint (e.g. rattle-can spray paint).

19. Suppressor should be resistant to corrosion, abrasion, impacts and chemicals, including standard Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) decontaminants.

20. The suppressor should resist maritime corrosion and/or effects of carbon/copper/lead fouling.
•   MIL-L-46000C – Lubricant, Semi-fluid (Automatic Weapons)
•   MIL-PRF-372D – Cleaning Compound, Solvent (Bore of Small Arms and Automatic Aircraft Weapons)
•   MIL-PRF-14107D – Lubricating Oil, Weapons, Low Temperature
•   MIL-PRF-63460D – Lubricant, Cleaner and Preservative for Weapons and Weapons Systems

22. The suppressor should not require a more frequent cleaning schedule than the weapon system.

23. The system, with suppressor attached should continue to operate and safely function after exposure to blowing dust, mud, salt fog, rain, and icing/freezing rain environments as specified in US Army Development Test Operations Procedure (TOP) 3-2-045 (Small Arms – Hand and Shoulder Weapons and Machineguns) dated Sep 2007.

24. The system, with suppressor attached should be able to withstand the shock from a user performing individual movement techniques in combat, and the vibrations of being transported in standard military aircraft and ground vehicles as loose cargo, without degradation of performance.

25. The system, with suppressor attached should continue to safely function after being dropped in any orientation from a 1.7 meter height onto a smooth concrete or steel surface at temperatures ranging from -25º Fahrenheit (F) to 140º F.  The addition of the suppressor on the weapon system should not result in a discharge when dropped from this height.

26. The system, with suppressor attached should safely function through a temperature range of -25º F to +140º F without degradation of performance.

27. In addition to the suppressor, request information on the ability of industry to provide a BFA type suppressor (that looks like, operates like and weighs the same as the live fire suppressor).  This BFA type suppressor should be capable of catching a live 5.56mm round.  This BFA suppressor should also be easily distinguished as a training device only.

This is the second request for information issued by the USMC on the subject of suppressors. The first, a more comprehensive RFI issued in May, also covered new rifles, uppers, optics, and targets, as well as sound reduction devices. These RFIs are the result of Marine Corps testing units equipped with fully supressed weapons – tests which demonstrated a substantial increase in communication and command capacity thanks to the reduction in gunfire noise. Although requests for information can be issued for many reasons, and may not be reflective of the attitudes of the service as a whole, it does seem as though the Marine Corps is sold on the idea of standard issue suppressors for their Infantry moving forward. It seems odds are good that, in a few years, the USMC will be fielding an increasingly suppressed arms suite.





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 nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Nicks87

    I just want to say that a suppressed M27 would probably be my go-to weapon, if I had the choice. I’m jealous of the Marines and their toys.

    • Jason Culligan

      I like the HK 416 but I can’t help thinking that a piston driven AR with a suppressor is going to be quite nose heavy.

      A bullpup, on the other hand, might have a noticeably improved centre of gravity with a suppressor attached.

    • CommonSense23

      Why?

      • Joshua

        Because he read it on the internet.

        • Nicks87

          I sure did, cuz da internet iz made for readin dingz.

    • Joshua

      I wouldn’t.

      You should have seen all the Stoppages the M27 was having when they gave everyone KAC suppressors.

      If you notice recent training the “Uber squad” is doing they have pulled suppressors from the M27 due to how many Stoppages it was experiencing.

      • Nicks87

        Maybe that’s why they are requesting information. Maybe somebody already has a suppressor in development that WILL work with the M27. Maybe in a perfect world I can have a reliable, suppressed, M27 that doesn’t cost a fortune or require special permits or enlistment (again) in the armed services.

        • MikeSmith13807

          That’s why the OSS was designed–it’s invisible to the gun’s action.

  • USMC03Vet

    So 20 inch overall barrel/suppressor length is back….

    • If only there was a way to have a weapon with a 20″ barrel length but a 30″ OAL…

      • Major Tom

        Rumor has it there’s these things called bullpups. Just a rumor I know.

      • gunsandrockets

        Well, the TRW low-maintenence-rifle had a 34 inch length with a 19 inch barrel. So there’s that…

      • DW

        Resurrect Korobov

      • iksnilol

        Korobov had 16″ barrel with 20.5″ overall.

    • Bobby McKellar

      Looks like time to bring back the old “over the barrel” designs like the AAC SCAR-H and others if they want to keep OAL from being an issue.
      Otherwise this’ll be a tough one..

  • SGT Fish

    asking for a headache with user serviceable suppressors. Really they just need some brevis’s. Heck, the 6.5 model is overkill for them and still almost 1/3rd the weight requirement

  • Sense?

    What i dont get is how the f* does it make sence to have totally overweight, unbalanced, stupidly long Carbines that are quiter – but then have LMG’s that give your position away ALL OVER AGAIN anyways.

    • Brett baker

      They’re replacing the m249 with the m27. There is a request for 7.62 suppressors for the m240. I can’t wait for the ****storm if Ruger gets this and the 7.62 rifle contract.

      • iksnilol

        Ruger is incapable of making anything lightweight, so doubt they will get this suppressor contract.

    • Cactus Air Force

      The benefits of suppressor usage in light infantry units is mostly due to increased situational awareness for the firer, not concealment. These marines are still shooting supersonic ammo, it’s not like the enemy is going to have a hard time hearing that.

      • iksnilol

        Still hard to hear where the shots are coming from since you only hear the sonic boom of the bullet.

  • I’m curious how a suppressor’s back pressure will effect the M27’s cyclic rate on full auto. It’s already around 850rpm without a suppressor.

    Hopefully that will be addressed with the new suppressor design.

    • Joshua

      More like 950 without a suppressor.

      No matter what the book says the M27 cycles far faster than the M4.

    • cwolf

      Unless it is an OSS which has very, very low back pressure.

    • Since they are demanding cans suitable without needing a gas check charging handle, sounds like they want minimal back pressure.

      Another “Shoot for the Moon” dreamsheet request, like most of the other items on the list.

      In the end, they’ll take the responses and go, “OK, *these* are what we can feasibly ask for as ‘Threshold’, and we’ll re-label our RFI ‘requirements’ as ‘objective’ when we draft the RFP.”

      Remember — you don’t get what you don’t ask for. If they’re willing to settle for an average, COTS can, that’s all they’ll get offered.

  • TheRoofIsOnFire

    Seems like they might want the AMTAC suppressors for their M4 Carbines. Interesting. But a toolless disassembly? That’s a bit hard to find for a CF rifle can.

    • Flounder

      It is only hard for civilians and the ATF. The companies can EASILY make cans user servicible.

      But i doubt any can in existance meets every requirement.

      • PK

        Hit the nail right on the head, there… it’s easy to make lightweight cans. You can even make them to be quiet and light, but then you run into heat issues. You can make them quiet and serviceable, but then you run into weight issues… and so on.

        The list of requirements can’t really be met by current tech, so far as I know. We can get close to all of those, at very high cost, but not quite meet them all.

        • Flounder

          I think companies can get close. I think this RFI is more of a, hey guys, these are the things we would like to see. Get cracking on something that gets as close as possible.

          I think a titanium can, on a titanium mount, with a mixture of incolnel (blast baffle) stainless (middle baffles) and titanium (end baffles and end caps) could meet the weight and durability requirements…

          The takedown requirement sucks. Because it would add weight, and breaks industry standards. i see this being the first thing dropped during development. Although… you could just have the can screw together. They are all made that way anyways then welded. That way the manufacturer can just cut the weld and repair internals.

          This is only a request for information after all.

    • cwolf

      Look at OSS.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Pretty interesting because

    2. Suppressor should enable a noise level of 139 decibels or lower at either of the shooters ears.

    There is NOTHING on the market that does that. NOT ONE. And doubly so for an AR that doesn’t have an adjustable gas system.

    The add on that:

    7. The entire suppressor and muzzle device should weigh no more than 18 oz.

    That precludes basically every thing on the market as well. Everyone ignores the weight of the suppressor mounts.

    ….

    This isn’t a call to buy, it’s a request for someone to build something well above what’s available on the market.

    • Flounder

      It is possible. Titanium suppressors are far lighter than 18oz

      And plenty of cans get within one decible if 139. That req is hard. But possible. I dont think why you are thinking it is totally beyond us?

      Keep in mind, this is the marine corps. To think companies will NOT make an entirely new custom design for them is a bit ridiculous.

      But at the same time, this RFI wants the best possible in every category. Each individual requirement is possible. But taken all together it starts to sound impossible.

      Like the sound reduction combined with the weight and size and durability requirements and the cleaning requirements make this a crazy can already…

      I am stoked to see where companies will succeed and curious as to which reqs they will ignore or fail intentionally.

      • FarmerB

        Which is why govt procurement is always expensive.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        Cool story.

        No Ti can would endure any mil testing for semi auto carbine.

        No suppressors on ARs are under 140db at ear. NONE.

        • Joshua

          18oz can requiring withstanding 36 rounds per minute for 14 minutes….yeah not happening.

          • JumpIf NotZero

            SIG’s can might work. Their inconel 556 can with a thread mount is 14oz. But it would fail the sound requirement, as would all of the cans on the market. Might also fail length and size.

        • iksnilol

          Wrong, wrong and wrong.

      • Also keep in mind this is an RFI, *not* an RFP or RFQ.

        The results from the responses to this will certainly inform any actual acquisition program.

    • cwolf

      youtuDOTbe/51cSzfn-WCo

      They tested a lot of cans using std protocol. Not at ear and not on full auto.

      The tests are divided into several videos.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        That link is a great example of what I’m talking about. Those tests are not at the ear.

        They’re at muzzle – which on ARs is QUIETER than at the port.

        There are lots of cans that do under 140db at the muzzle – there are NONE that do it at the shooter’s ear. Too much noise comes from the ejection port.

    • iksnilol

      Titanium suppressors have existed for a while.

      If you can’t make a worthwhile suppressor that weighs less than half a kilogram you suck at making suppressors.

    • MikeSmith13807

      OSS certainly gets below 140 at the shooter’s ear…

  • LazyReader

    something sexy about an M4 with a 203 under it. I think it evens it out. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8208492c9e4da42695b5eadf8adc3aa340e9b5672f343ee1c5ed55c3a92c4149.jpg

    • int19h

      So I always wondered: why are US underbarrel grenade launchers so *huge*? I mean, compare to an AK:

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5b41160490e4cb9f1d7e16b8e1fa738a3d34d7718ffa7493a39af7cd4b687802.png

      • LazyReader

        Doesn’t matter. The barrel length on a GP-25 is 4.7 inches, the M203 has a 9 or 12 inch barrel which makes it ideal for accurate firing. And lastly both weapons weigh the same.

        • int19h

          Barrel length does not matter much for accurate firing for long guns – why would it matter here?

          The weight matters too, of course. But why have more bulk when you can have less?

      • Bierstadt54

        NATO launchers are breech-loaders; Russian launchers are muzzle-loaders

        • int19h

          Ah, that makes sense. So M203 needs more room to accommodate the mechanism that provides breech access?

          Are there any other advantages and disadvantages to muzzle-loading in a grenade launcher?

          • Mazryonh

            Well, to start the M203 had to slide its barrel forwards so it can extract a spent shell casing and allow the user to load a fresh grenade. The GP series of grenade launchers don’t need to do that thanks to their use of caseless grenades, and so have less moving parts to accomodate while taking less time to reload.

            The downside to the muzzle-loaded GP series is that if you try to extend the barrel to extend effective range, it’s easy to get to the point where you can’t ram the grenade all the way down with your fingers anymore and have to use a ramrod (which takes time, as any muzzleloader user can tell you).

            The M320 got around this problem while still remaining ambidextrous, by using a swing-out barrel that can the swing the breech end out to either side to accomodate both left- and right-handed users. This also allows users to more easily load in longer grenades (the older M203’s barrel could only slide forward so far), or even missiles in some cases.

      • Bobby McKellar

        Russian underbarrel launchers are anywhere from 25mm to 30mm diameter. That’s 25% less, ergo they look MUCH smaller.
        They (Russia) have SEVERAL different diameter grenades for several different types of launchers and it really is confusing (even for Russian military members).

        • int19h

          Huh? GP-25 and GP-35 fire 40mm VOG-25 grenades.

          • Bobby McKellar

            Yes I understand that, but you’re asking why some look so SMALL and I have the reason WHY they may look so small. There are several different types in the Warsaw Pact armories. The 40mm launchers you’re talking about probably LOOK smaller because they tend to have shorter barrels and the mounting bracket is a bit more compact to fit in the AKM hand guard’s much smaller footprint.

  • Luke Yost

    Soooo….who’s the civilian that has the time to make a full list of available cans so that we can give our own rankings of what is the best fit? That’d be a reallllyyy cool thread.
    -Luke @modzero

  • Joshua

    I posted about it below, but it’s worth mentioning here.

    When the “Uber squad” first issued everyone NT4 suppressors the M27s we’re having lots of Stoppages. I actually found it funny.

    If you notice in recent open source publications on “Uber squad” none of the M27s are being suppressed only the M4s.

    There’s a reason for that.

    The 416 runs at such a high cyclic rate that special suppressors must be used on them. This is just one more issue with going to a non standard weapon. Way to go Marine Corps.

    • Machinegunnertim

      Tell the SEALS what fools they are as well for adopting a non standard weapon.
      New stuff?!! Innovation?!!! Hell no!! Get back in line USMC!!!

      • Joshua

        You realize there is more than one SEAL team right?

        Also this falls back to being an early adopter back in 2003/2004 before Crane worked out the Mk-18/CQB-R kinks and how one does not renege on a contract vehicle unless the manufacturer messes up somehow, which HK isn’t in that regards.

        NSWDG, which you are referring to is but one SEAL team of many.

        Second not everyone there across the board loves the 416, trust me I’ve spent time with those people, some love it, some hate it. Some want to keep the 416, and some wanted the CQB-R I had.

        However unless HK fails to deliver parts and rifles, or quality drops off so bad that the guns are no longer operable it will stay in use until it’s contract vehicle ends.

        Even then it will likely remain in service due to logistical supply chains for maintenance and JSOC funds not being unlimited….despite what the internet says.

        Lastly the 416 you see in use with JSOC is not a bare bones from the factory HK416.

        It has a few custom modifications to it done by the amazing armorers working for them.

      • CommonSense23

        Only one seal team is using the 416. And it’s more a meh thing for them.

      • Brett baker

        If the Marines would just have Colt or FN build them a 17″ HBAR upper, they could be special without being completely stupid.

        • Machinegunnertim

          If I remember right Colt and FN submitted weapons but HK won. Nothing stupid about that. I’ll tell you what is completely stupid, giving everyone 14.5 inch barrels for 5.56, giving everyone berets, ACU/UCP camo, and on and on.

  • derfelcadarn

    Yeah, because we wouldn’t want having a war to wake the friggin neighbors. More ways to piss away taxpayer dollars.

    • PK

      Long-term, it should save money by reducing hearing loss. I hope.

      • cwolf

        Hearing loss is the #1 veteran claim at VA.

        Plus, hearing protectors affect your situational awareness and stability.

        Suppressors can save lives, not just hearing.

        • Mazryonh

          Suppressors still need hearing protectors in general to get a “hearing-safe” level of firing noise. So those electronic ones that only block out firing noises might work.

    • Joe

      “FLANK LEFT!” WHAT? “FLANK! LEFT!” WHAT?

      It’s about communication and situational awareness, nothing to do with others hearing or not hearing weapons fire.

    • Flounder

      Hearing loss prevention and ability to communicate in the field. And a suppressor should be pretty cheap when this kind of scale is involved. They are marked up a whole lot on the civilian US market due to the laws. Which is also why we make very high quality ones rather than the easiest ones.

      An example is If baffles were not legally annoying to replace we would never ever use incolnel.

    • Suppressors provide MASSIVE tactical advantages in a firefight. YOU have great situational awareness and can tell where the enemy is. THEY do not and cannot – in fact, when they try and fire on where they hear the noise coming from, it is invariably NOT where your guys are (because they are actually shooting at the objects the sonic crack is reflecting off as the bullet passes.)

      • cwolf

        The USMC is focusing on the Command and Control aspect. The unit members can hear commands in a suppressed unit.

  • cwolf

    Sounds like an OSS with a Surefire QD mount.

    Hmmm, what if they standardized on 7.62 suppressor to avoid any oops in combat.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9ce55346ccda21c174f8772a22bb902256582190b6b1b0726877d5dfe2c2a95a.jpg

    • PK

      Yeah, they want an overbored silencer that can be used on 5.56 and 7.62, but they want it to produce 139dB at the ear. Sure thing, guys… sure thing.

      • cwolf

        Yet the MAC Youtube videos show just that.

    • Flounder

      Yes. They are really asking for an overbored suppressor. But it is the military. And will be used on a massive scale. This is a pretty important requirement to avoid baffle strikes when thousands of marines are using them.

      And if the marines use them, then just think if how much crap and garbage will get inside them. I see the requirement for some wiggle room being very important. But that is just my thoughts.

      The real question is if they require a can that will fit on 338 lapua rifles or 50 bmg. And how that works with the muzzle device being replaced.

      • cwolf

        Agree. Lots of folks are buying 7.62 suppressors and then swapping them around due to the cost and wait states. I haven’t seen any sound level tests on a 556 fired through a 7.62 suppressor…. yet.

        Always have to plan for a 0300 firefight with sleep deprived and dehydrated folks.

        If they don’t go to 7.62 then they need to put BOLD markings on them.

        There seems to be a trend away from the .50 cal sniper rifle to 338 variants, etc. The .50 cal arrowhead compensator overpressure on the spotter and the recoil are tough. Beautiful effective weapon, but the sniper team pays a price.

  • ReadyOrNot

    So I’m sure the Chinese and Russians will follow suit completely negating the advantage of using a suppressor against them and others observing our TTPs. Just dumb for the US to feel the need to announce just about every single defense acquisition and give her adversaries time to plan.

    • CommonSense23

      Are you really serious? Do you think the Chinese or Russians are just that dumb?

    • You think *anyone* with the slightest bit of ordnance knowledge and interest would miss the Marine Corps fielding fully suppressed rifle squads?!?

      Besides, RFIs for this sort of thing are PUBLICLY DISCOVERABLE (i.e., FOIA) documents, by law.

  • Sam

    While useful for SOCOM suppressors. For infantry use suppressors offer many issues. Over heating is a major issue. As the battle of Want shows issues with infantry rapid fire uses over heats barrels with suppressors on them it would increase heating ten fold. Cost be another as well. Overall think infantry rifles should remain simple and reliable. Quit trying to make ever person in the military a SOCOM equiped software solder.

    • Joshua

      It’s because unlike prior wars the GWOT has prioritized special forces to near god like levels.

      Once we go to war with another actual nation you’ll see movies about regular soldiers made daily and special forces will be mostly forgotten.

    • iksnilol

      Tell that to Finland, they’ve made suppressors (that work) for MG34’s.

      Suppressors are the future, they’re cheap and a force multiplier.

      • Gus Butts

        If they can 3D print Browning M2 suppressors… I’m sure everything is possible if you put your heart into it. 🙂

    • BeGe1

      They typically are quick attach/detach for military purposes.

      Infantry simply wouldn’t use them the same as SOCOM, they would use them where is advantageous for infantry.

      Examples:

      When doing an ambush, throwing on suppressors would help enormously to not allow the enemy to easily determine where the fire is coming from, giving extra time to make high casualties within their ranks before they can take effective action in return.

      Night operations can be performed with muzzle flash effectively eliminated…which would increase night dominance over many foes by a very large amount.

      Infantry that are on recon patrols can attach them while on patrol in case of discovery, where eliminating a discovering entity has a lesser chance of alerting everyone else, giving them a higher chance of escape.

      That’s just off the top of my head. I highly doubt they would be employed at all times.

    • MikeSmith13807

      OSS heats up about half as much as a conventional design…

  • bj

    At least they swinging for the fence with this one. Just a shame they aren’t pushing this hard for carbine enhancement also instead of settling for the old and heavy 416.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Not 140db at ear. And “almost works” doesn’t work.

    • Manual states 138db with a 7.5″ 5.56 at the left ear. Per some milspec. 140db with a 12″ 308.

      “2. Suppressed sound level is measured at shooter’s left ear location per MIL-STD-1474E. SPL varies with barrel length and action type.Values shown are for minimum length barrels above.”

      But if you want to swing internet wang some more, go ahead…

      • JumpIf NotZero

        First off; that’s a BS manipulated number. Second, cool, let’s see right ear where the ejection port is.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    Yes… The entire industry can’t do it, but OSS did. That makes a ton of sense.

    It’s definitely not more likely that OSS isn’t just full of crap. And not at all relevant that no independent testing shows OSS to suppress under 140db at ear.

    • MikeSmith13807

      Dude, you need to chill–you talk like you know a lot more than you do… MAC metered the 7.62 Helix under 140 at the ear–you telling me 5.56 would be worse?

  • JumpIf NotZero

    That’s nice, some clowns a couple years ago set up a meter wrong and posted all sorts of results. No one with a decent testing methodology has been able to show under 140db at right ear.

    Sure as hell not a 10.5″ DI gun. Pistons should be a little quieter at ear but not 135db.

    • SystemAlert

      Wow, you are special. No critical thinking skills. All emotion. Typical liberal.

      You dont have to believe it. Go buy your own meter and test all the silencers out there. There are at least 5 that are below 139 at both ears.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    LOL OSS. Ok, good one. You’re right. Those parties at SHOT then silence the rest of the year are really the type of things innovative companies with excellent products do.

    • cwolf

      It is unreasonable to say something is infeasible/impossible before testing. You could argue it’s very difficult or stunningly expensive.

      If a suppressor is designed specifically for the M27 and Over The Barrel, they can do lots of things.

      USMC will have to prioritize its requirements.

      I don’t own stock in OSS and clearly they had startup problems. Any small company has to carefully budget its resources.

      But the MAC test shows it can at least meet the sound requirement. Plus I think minimizing blowback on shots is also important. Lead poisoning is bad.

      Clearly HK thinks the OSS is the way to go.

      We’ll just have to wait & see.

  • Max Müller

    With the requirement to not make the barrel longer than 20″ (i assume from 14″) this is quite a challenge.
    Also, sub 140 decobels at the shooters ear is not easy. Baffle designs increase backpressure and noise level at the ear. In fact most supressors are not hearing save at the shooters ear, especially in more powerfull calibers.
    Also no increased need for cleaning.
    This looks like they might be playing with the idea of a low backpressure design, flow through supressors. Either maxflow or OSS.

  • Bobby McKellar

    Sounds like a job for SureFire…

  • b. griffin

    2 and 4 are in direct conflict

  • Mazryonh

    This got me thinking of that scene near the beginning of the film Full Metal Jacket where Gunnery Sgt. Hartman tells Pvt. Joker to show him Joker’s war face while screaming, ostensibly because throwing enough sound and fury at the enemy at close range might just make them run away.

    Now this RFI is all about making the USMC infantry quieter in battle. I guess war really can change, unlike what the Fallout series says.