The USMC Wants Integrally Suppressed Rifles

US Marine Lance Cpl. Raymond Jastrzebski Jr., armed with an M4 Carbine fitted with a KAC NT4 suppressor, during exercises in Værnes, Norway. (U.S. Marine Corps/Lance Cpl. Sarah N. Petrock)

The US Marine Corps may soon be calling on the firearm industry for proposals for integrally suppressed firearms. The Marine Corps Times report that Colonel Mike Manning, the program manager for the Marine Corps Systems Command’s Ground Combat Element Systems program, discussed the Corps’ future for suppressors during a panel at the annual Modern Day Marine military expo at Quantico.

He confirmed that the Corps will soon be drafting a request for industry (RFP) proposals. Manning hinted that “there’s a couple [auppressor systems] out there right now that integrate with the weapons themselves. That’s really where we want to be. Integrate the suppressor into the barrel,”

Gunner Christian Wade discusses suppressors:

The Corps believes that suppressors improve the command and control of units during firefights, allow for tactical innovation and increase a squad’s ability to operate stealthily

Manning declined to go into detail on what the RFI might call for or just how many integrally suppressed Rifles the Corps may want. The 2nd Marine Division has been testing commercially available suppressors at the battalion level for some time and the Corps seems to be interested in refining their deployment.

“The advantages to that integration are immediate,” Manning explained, “quit throwing it on the end so that now we have a 14-and-a-half inch barrel or a 16-inch barrel. We just added four or five inches to that barrel.”

What configuration the new integral system might take remains to be seen. Marine infantrymen are currently equipped with the M4 and the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. An integrally suppressed upper receiver kit for these rifles seems the most likely option.





Matthew Moss is a British historian specialising in small arms development and military history. He has written for a variety of publications in both the US and UK he also runs www.historicalfirearms.info, a blog that explores the history, development and use of firearms. Matthew is also co-founder of www.armourersbench.com, a new video series on historically significant small arms.


Advertisement

  • Black Dots

    I think Silencerco has an unexpected overstock of suppressed rifles they are looking to unload.

  • Dr. Longfellow Buchenrad

    Everybody Wants Integrally Suppressed RIfles.

    • RealitiCzech

      Not me. I equip all my guns with loudeners.

    • rychastings

      not after the armory folks yell at everyone for fouled up riles and make them clean it again

    • AUTOFULL

      WHAT LONGFELLOW SAID.

  • Ryan Meyer

    Daniel Defense ISR.

  • LazyReader

    So the Pentagon asked and the Marine Corps responded “More Science Fictiony”
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0b48bff02396a6c76553eef39946eadc9dd5effe6a4d39b3a5aa9466a5492783.jpg

    • TalbotFarwell

      Still waiting on them to drop a squad of Marines in a hypersonic space capsule behind enemy lines.

      • forrest1985

        As long as i’m not first to test that out, by all means!

      • Sid

        I thought the Marines were using drop-ships like they did on that rescue mission to LV-426.

        And does the M41 Pulse Rifle have a suppressor? And will it affect the 10 millimeter explosive tip caseless standard light armor piercing rounds?

      • gunsandrockets

        Don’t you know that’s the real purpose of Space Ship Two?

        It’s not really a tourist vehicle, that’s just the cover story for the black ops program!

    • JumpIf NotZero

      I like how they just threw a shemagh up on there for fun, and also got to the boots and just quit.

    • KidCorporate

      Someone’s been playing too much Titanfall.

  • Nicks87

    “The Corps believes that suppressors improve the command and control of units during firefights, allow for tactical innovation and increase a squad’s ability to operate stealthily”.
    Not sure if I’m really surprised or not, that it’s taken so long for the military to figure this out. Oh well, let the innovation begin…

  • SGT Fish

    this is why the delta P designs’ Brevis line is the answer. It is basically the same as installing a flash suppressor. No maintenance, no parts and pieces. Torque/rocksette/locktite it on and never take it off til the gun needs repaired at an armorer level. Clean your gun the same, shoot without hearing protection. Problem solved.
    only issue is price, which would come down with a govt contract/large order.

    • iksnilol

      Doubtful, if I remember correctly it’s 3d printed. Only so many you can print at a time.

      • SGT Fish

        yes, but multiple larger, faster printers will bring cost down and up the production numbers.

        • 3d printing isn’t real great for “economy of scale” production.

    • onthedew

      It will not pass the full auto requirements…..

      • SGT Fish

        you think the titanium one piece can won’t stand up to full auto? is this a joke post? name a single can that is as tough as the Brevis without being 3-5x the weight and size. what do you think will fail on it?

        • onthedew

          You missed the point. Perhaps I was not as clear as could have been: The SURG program requirement is 8 or 9 full auto mag dumps. As testing has proved again and again when using M855A2 ammo – screw on suppressors do not survive. Also the Brevis was not submitted to the SURG program. Then there is the weakness of the single attachment point, heat, no flash suppression, not as quiet as the spec requires, want me to go on?

          It is a good suppressor, just does not meet the military’s stated requirements.

          • iksnilol

            Screw on suppressors don’t survive due to the western worlds stupid insistency on using right hand rifling with right hand threads. Torque loosens muzzle devices.

            That’s why Russian muzzle devices are attached with left hand threads, since the torque from the right hand rifling then tightens the muzzle device.

          • Uniform223

            “The SURG program requirement is 8 or 9 full auto mag dumps. As testing has proved again and again when using M855A2 ammo – screw on suppressors do not survive.”

            > There is a “new” EPR round out there? Nah most likely a typo. In general NO SUPPRESSOR can withstand that kind of abuse, doesn’t matter if the round is M195 or M855 or M855A1.

          • iksnilol

            Pretty sure plenty of suppressors can survive that.

            I mean, SiCo blew up a suppressor firing a 700 burst from a M249. Reflex suppressors from Finland were made for MG34s and worked just fine.

          • valorius

            8 or 9 full auto mag dumps when Infantry forces are issued 7 magazines for combat? That makes sense.

          • Ondřej Tůma

            Ever heard the R&D term “safety margin”?

            With inherently fail-unsafe devices like muzzle devices, this roughly translates to 20% safety margin – which is exactly what you’d typically aim for in this kind of requirements.

          • James Kachman

            >M855A2

            Is that an actual designation or a typo/term of convenience?

          • SGT Fish

            ok well now you just sound unknowledgeable. almost all cans suppress the flash without issue. The Brevis is not an integral suppressor, but almost works as one. It will definitely pass the FA test and far exceed it. And the only reason we have suppressors that come loose is because most people don’t rockset them on or even torque them on. You don’t see flash hiders and muzzle breaks unscrewing with FA fire because they aren’t just screwed on by hand, and neither would the Brevis. Maybe you should look into the can some more. Its not made to be treated like a standard detachable can. Like Ron Popeil used to say, “you set it… and FORGET IT!”:

  • HemingwaysBeard

    I still don’t get why the Marine Corps and the Army are permitted to have seperate small arms R&D and procurement processes. I understand they each have some unique requirements, but this seems to have gotten way out of hand. What happened to “Joint”?

    • Flounder

      The Joint strike fighter?

      Or maybe the Joint handgun program?

      Joint ends up being worse in recent history and neither politicians or bureaucrats or officers want any part of it anymore?

      Remember, if it is efficient, it cannot be done by the government.

    • Ron

      Because they under seperate service secretaries.

      • Brett baker

        No, It’s because Marines are all special, whereas the Army is a bunch of dumb grunts.

    • valorius

      I still don’t understand why the USMC even exists at all. It’s only been 67 years since we did an amphibious invasion of any kind whatsoever. Since that time the USMC has been nothing more than a dissimilar equipped Army corps, in many cases with ancient equipment.

      • Ron

        Why a Marine Corps?
        The Nation needs the military capabilities found within the Corps
        by Col G.I. Wilson, USMC(Ret) & LtCol H.T. Hayden, USMC(Ret) Published in the Jan 2011 Marine Corps Gazette

        Defense Secretary Robert M.Gates recently said that he had ordered a review of the future role of the Marine Corps amid “anxiety” that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had turned the Service into a “second land army.” In remarks for a speech at Marines’ Memorial Theatre in San Francisco, Secretary Gates said that the review would seek to define a 21st century combat mission for the Marines that is distinct from the Army’s, because the Marines “do not want to be, nor does America need” another ground combat force.

        According to the 13 August 2010 Los Angeles Times, in ordering the Pentagon review: Gates was deepening a long-running debate about the role of the Marine main missions, amphibious assaults on fortified coastlines, has become obsolete because of the changing nature of warfare and advances in precision weaponry. “Amphibious assaults on fortified coastlines” is the most ill-informed or uninformed statement anyone can make. The beauty of amphibious shipping is that it can sail up and down a coastline and land Marines where the enemy is less likely to be defending a landing zone. No one in his right mind would do another Tarawa landing. Anyone remember Inchon, Korea? It was landing where the enemy was less prepared.

        So again we see many questioning the need for a Marine Corps. There are always those who claim that there has not been another amphibious landing since World War II (WWII). This is nonsense and is a prime example of those ignorant of history and espousing their independent political persuasion and preconceived notions. The last major amphibious operation was the start of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF); before that was Operation DESERT STORM (ODS). Amphibious
        operations can be classified as follows:

        . Amphibious assault (OEF, Vietnam, Korea, etc.).
        . Amphibious demonstration or feint (ODS, Vietnam, etc.).
        . Amphibious raid (ODS, Mogadishu (noncombatant evacuation operations ), Vietnam, etc.).
        . Amphibious withdrawal (Korea, WWII, etc.).

        Too soon today’s writers, political pundits, and armchair generals have forgotten the first major amphibious assault into the Republic of Vietnam-Operation STARLITE (18-24 August 1965). The operation was a combined attack from land and an amphibious assault from naval shipping-Amphibious Squadron 7 and embarked Battalion Landing Team 3d Battalion, 3d Marines. This major military operation destroyed the Viet Cong 1st Regiment. In 1969 alone, we conducted 14 amphibious operations in Vietnam.

        We had a major amphibious operation in ODS-the demonstration or feint off Kuwait that tied down seven Iraqi divisions while the coalition forces invaded from the south. The first major attack into Afghanistan was an amphibious operation that landed Marines from amphibious ships in the Indian Ocean. Then-BGen James N. Mattis was the Commander, 1st MEB, and Commander, Task Force 58, during the first major strike in OEF in southern Afghanistan. BGen Mattis became the first Marine ever to command a naval task force in combat.

        Some question why Marines go to the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA).Marines come out of all Service academies. Marines are an integral part of the Navy and usually comprise 17 percent of the graduating USNA class.(More apply, but 17 percent is the maximum percentage allowed.)

        The Marines have their own “air force” because it is their long-range artillery. No armed force in the world, except the British, uses close air support like the Marine Corps. The U.S. Air Force and the Navy do not practice close air support and have made many mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan hitting the wrong targets.

        Everyone needs to study what a MAGTF is all about-land, air, logistics. Then one may learn that the MAGTF, a combined arms team, is fully self-sufficient and is a unique capability that no other country in the world possesses. A MAGTF (usually a battalion landing team, an aviation combat element with the AV-8B Harrier and tilt rotor MV-22 Osprey, and a logistics element) onboard amphibious shipping is afloat in the Pacific and the Atlantic at almost any given time.

        The Capstone Concept for Joint Operations (Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC, 15 January 2009) points out that diminishing overseas access is another challenge anticipated in the future operating environment. In war, this challenge may require forcible entry capabilities designed to seize and maintain lodgments in the face of armed resistance.

        The third edition of the Marine Corps Operating Concepts (Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, DC, 28 July 2010) notes that in the past 20 years, U.S. amphibious forces have responded to crises and contingencies over 120 times, a response rate more than double that of the Cold War. Furthermore, during the same period, forward postured amphibious forces continually conducted sea based security cooperation with international partners, reflecting the philosophy that preventing war is as important as winning wars.

        The biggest reason there is a U.S. Marine Corps is simply because the American people love their Marines, need their Marines, want their Marines, and demand their Marines. Americans expect their Marines to be the first to fight and to do it to the enemy before the enemy does it to us.

        >Authors’ Note: For more about the modern history of amphibious operations, see the U.S. Naval Institute blog, Raymond Pritchett (Internet pseudonym Galrahn), May 2009. Also recommended is Amphibious Assault: Maneuver from the Sea, edited by LCDR Tristan Lovering, Royal Navy, 2000, a widely cited British tabletop book that is in most military libraries in America.

        • valorius

          The US Army proved in WWII that it can do amphibious operations of a massive scale without a single marine present. See: Operation Overlord.

          • TJbrena

            And the Army took back the Philippines without any Marines involved.

          • valorius

            Okinawa was a majority Army operation as well. The Marine corps are good warriors and they have a proud history, but they are an un-neccesary luxury. I think you could make a pretty strong argument that rolling their aviation assets into the USN and their ground forces into the US Army would yield a superior combat force.

  • DESTRO YAKISOBA

    So what happened to the Suppressor Upper Receiver Ground (SURG) program?? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7d5631a0f215cdf3ea420c6ff3abd3f9a2e413514380a3b7b9b35bd145dc3ada.jpg

    • Gun Fu Guru

      That there is the Army, son. Ain’t no self-respecting Marine gonna follow the Army.

      • Andrew

        You’re right. They’ll probably never adopt something the Army had before them. Like the M4 or M9.

        • Major Tom

          Or the M16 or M14 or M1 Garand or Thompson submachinegun or M1/M9 Bazooka or 1903 Springfield or 1911 pistol…

    • The SURG is a really neat idea, but I have to imagine that it would get extremely hot with the suppressor inside the handguard.

      • gunsandrockets

        VFG solution?

        • I’d say VFG would be mandatory.

          But given how ridiculously hot a standard suppressor gets (600-1000 degrees is entirely possible in sustained semi auto per the guys on SilencerTalk) I’d be worried that the handguard would get hot enough to begin cooking/melting accessories such as the body of the IR laser, wire/cables, etc. Not to mention melting any fabric the rifle encounters should it need to be slung.

        • AlDeLarge

          I didn’t want a VFG until I fired my SBR with the suppressor only poking a couple of inches out of the handguard. That thing gets very hot, very fast. It has a vertical foregrip now.

      • DESTRO YAKISOBA

        There was some testing I read about with an inert gas layer between the can and the handguard that was supposed to dissipate that heat. Gotta look for it

        • That would be really neat.

          I was kinda thinking the other day that it would be interesting if they made a water tight handguard to serve as a mini water cooled LMG for use as the IAR. Might actually be better for use as a water barrier between the internal suppressor and the handguard.

          • valorius

            Water is heavy.

        • Stuki Moi

          Dissipate it to where? A wing mounted radiator?

  • miniguyvegas

    RFI means Request For Information

    • Timmah_timmah

      Very good!

  • Vincent

    I can also only imagine the kind of griping the armorers will have when a neverending pile of damaged integrally suppressed rifles shows up.

    Also I’m not versed well in suppressed rifles, I’m guessing they won’t cause the rifle to spit gas in your face as badly as the normal screw on kind because of the size of the whole thing and amount of baffles inside?

  • Haulin’ Oats
    • Rock or Something

      Nice, a new picture with everyone’s favorite pie-loving operator.

    • Porty1119

      I’m from the internet and I’m here to help!

    • Alex A.

      Lol awe man! That top pic in this article of the Marine on his knee totally reminds me of this guy. Sorry dude!

    • rjackparis

      Took slicing the pie to whole new level.

      • Haulin’ Oats

        He doesn’t even slice the pie. He just eats the whole thing like a little tart.

  • Guy

    This is great and all but good luck making it grunt proof. Not to be negative but as soon as one of these cans is abused hard- like all military gear- it’s going to be a safety issue. Sounds great in theory but you’re going to need a seriously beefy suppressor, which will also be heavy. SOCOM guys can run suppressors because they’re generally more mature than an 18 year old grunt and have a lot more training.

    • SGT Fish

      DELTA P DESIGNS BREVIS

    • CommonSense23

      How fragile do you think a suppressor is?

      • Major Tom

        Fragile enough that I’m not 100% confident I could trust Private Snuffy or LCpl Smuckatelli with them.

        • Ron

          They are thougher and simpler than the rifles they are mounted to

          • Timmah_timmah

            Well put. Seems pretty obvious to me.

        • CommonSense23

          Yeah, you apparently dont have much experience with all the gear that is currently being issued do you. Suppressors are far more durable than nods, lasers, a good bit of our squad level comms equipment, most optics.

          • Major Tom

            But I’ve known Private Snuffies. There is nothing I would trust them not to break. Not even a rock.

          • CommonSense23

            So you have no issue with them being issued nods but you got a problem with a suppressor.

          • iksnilol

            Why issue Private Snuffies a rifle then? If he’s gonna break a tube with washers in it, he sure as heck already broke the rifle.

          • valorius

            Massive expense and effort is put into making rifles as soldier proof as humanly possible. Has similar effort been put into doing the same with suppressors?

            For the extra weight of a suppressor, i’d rather just carry an extra grenade.

          • iksnilol

            I dunno, an AR like any other autoloading rifle is pretty complicated yet they seem to work just fine.

            OOOH, maybe soldiers should have spears instead, those can’t be broken.

          • Ron

            Kind of proves you don’t know what you don’t know and I kind of doubt your actual operation experience.

          • valorius

            Operational. The word you’re looking for is operational.

          • Ron

            Oh a typo, does not change the intent

          • valorius

            It was simply amusing to me for you to call my operational experience into question while misspelling operational.

            I really don’t care what you think of my qualification to have an opinion. It doesn’t change my experience, and if you’re of the opinion that any American is not qualified to have said opinion, you can get doubly bent.

          • Ron

            everyone has a right to an opinion, but not everyone has an informed opinion and your opinions on ground combat equipping tend to be very wrong. Leading people to think your actual experience to offer an informed opinion is lacking

          • valorius

            I can only offer the opinion of a man that served in the US Army infantry, and has used most of the systems we discuss here in the actual field.

          • valorius

            I have to agree with Major Tom. Having been in the infantry, I have seen various infantrymen at various times break literally every piece of issued TA-50 equipment.

        • Despite the fact that you can issue a squad of infantry privates three identical 12″ stainless steel balls after PT, and by lunchtime, one will be broken, one will be missing, and one will be pregnant, the truth is that modern suppressors are tougher than the rifles or optics they are mounted on, that Snuffy already has to deal with.

          Now, I thoroughly believe that if they can be disassembled in the field (and they should be, if only because Snuffy will manage to jam crap in there, or have field mice nesting in it, or something equally silly), they should probably be of a monocore design, so he’s less likely to lose important bits.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            Good thought, but if Joe can handle that little PITA firing pin retaining pin on an M4 that’s easily lost, I’m not overly worried about him losing something as big as a 50 cent piece.

    • gunsandrockets

      maybe the solution is a simpler smaller more durable suppressor, even if it is much less effective at suppressing sound compared to a conventional suppressor.

  • RSG

    In a perfect world, suppressors would be unregulated. Every barrel produced would be integrally suppressed and available as a stand alone product on the civilian market. If the Marines pursue a contract and we get more than 3 large companies (spikes, DD and Gemtech/SW) regularly building integrally suppressed barrels, it will filter to our market. If a normal barrel today costs $250, then suppressed barrels should be no more than $600.

  • JumpIf NotZero

    I’ve known about their intent on this for about 8 years now. Not new. Big Army pays more for hearing loss than any other medical issue.

    The issue is they basically want something that doesn’t quite exist yet. But you are going to see designs start popping up with cans that don’t remove from the barrel. It’s tough because for a long lasting barrel want a different steel than you want for a long lasting can.

    • Ron

      Big army pays nothing for hearing loss, that is VA money.

      • JumpIf NotZero

        ok random poster. I guess you clearly know a lot about the subject.

        I guess “pays” must always mean hands money to directly. 🤦‍♂️

        • Ron

          well words means things, and to say the army pays for disability is incorrect.

          The 2010 Small Arms Signature Reduction Joint CDD whose KPPs and KSAs revolve around ability to locate the shooter by overall signature (both sound and flash) and does not actually require the weapon to be rendered hearing safe.

      • Anthony Kaiser

        True, unless it’s a retiree and combat related, where a retiree can waive VA and take CRDP.

    • glenn cheney

      So give them what they think they need, chrome lined 4150 moly, and a replaceable screw on off titanium toy, with a pin if it makes them feel better.
      They’ll find a reason to pay a grand plus for what should cost the mfger less than 500 bucks.
      Lol, take the plans over to Colt, tell them don’t think, just build and ship the crates, that’s all, and get the wagon train moving.
      Seems there is a lot of mil spec dust ups ongoing for variants these days.
      You’re not “in” if you don’t have a special arms configuration.
      Inter-Agency Status Symbols.

  • Relic

    I just can’t believe Gunner Wade is still in. That man is crazy. No seriously, he’s crazy. I think he’s got an IV line set up in his asscheek for energy drinks and dip.

    • Ron

      He is a Division Gunner, although his activities are cordinated with Gunner community. It’s the Gunner at CDI and PP&O that are move equipping along

  • Gun Fu Guru

    Semi-only Aero Precision lower with a Daniel Daniel Defense upper?
    This man must be SOF to get the non-standard issue equipment.

    #sarcasm

  • onthedew

    Someone should tell Colonel Mike Manning about the Suppressed Upper Receiver Group program that is about to announce a winner for the Marines and SOCOM. The RFIs were done a long time a go and a really good specification was issued – Last Year!

    • forrest1985

      Its almost like the services don’t talk to one another!

      • Ron

        Trust me SOCOM and the Marines are work hand and hand on most weapons projects and are well aware of each other’s projects

        Acquistion 101 (which is an actual DAU course) An RFI is a request to see what is avaialble, after an RFP and some testing the material decision authority will make a decision to field or defer.

        • valorius

          I don’t trust you.

          • Ron

            Okay, tell me what the out brief of the Army and Marine Corps board on the small arms signature reduction was?

          • valorius

            Feel free to share it with the class.

          • Ron

            You are the “expert” that is telling an actual requirements office who does works joint issues at service HQs

          • valorius

            Requirements board experts ordered the Gamma go, the M60A2 tank, and the M85 .50 caliber machine gun.

            Requirements boards are right about half the time- and that’s being generous. Very generous.

          • Ron

            You really don’t anything the acquisitions process do you? The AMCB is not a requirements board (which really is not a thing in acquisition). It’s a standing joint meeting of the two services’ Deputies for Operations and Acquisitions. Those four, three stars and their staffs are informed of the other services’ ground combat acquisition programs so each service can determine which programs should be adopted by other the service

          • valorius

            Well since REMFs run acquisition boards and i wasn’t a REMF….

          • Ron

            Well tell us about your actual combat experience or experience in general?

          • valorius

            IOW, you’ve got nothing.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            Nice dodge.

          • valorius

            You have nothing, but accuse me of dodging. You’re like debating an empty room.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            I have nothing? You don’t have a clue about the acquisition world, or who is in it. Most of you FA 51s (acquisitions functional area) are also primary branched in the specialty the work acquisitions for. REMFs dont run combat arms acquisitions.

          • valorius

            Well you’re clearly an expert.

            What i know is that i watch the US military say it desperately needs high $ item after high $ item only to cancel said items after years of development and billions invested, shortly after they become ready for production, or with only a fraction of the items “needed” being produced.

            The F22 fighter, RAH-66 and Crusader artillery system being three recent examples.

            US Military acquisition is a total joke. From small ticket items like rifles (how many times has the US tried to replace the M16/M4 now? All the way up to big ticket items like the B2.

          • valorius

            A former grunt behind a desk is a REMF by assignment. Just ask one yourself.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            By your standard, Carlos Hathcock, III, son of the great sniper, is a REMF because he worked in PM CAS (TOW systems).

          • valorius

            You ask any combat MOS soldier stuck in a “desk jockey” job, he’ll be the first to tell you he’s “stuck in a REMF job.”

          • Anthony Kaiser

            90% of the Army is a “REMF job.” West Point instructor is a “REMF job” but I bet you no one ever called H. R. McMaster a REMF while he was teaching history there.

          • valorius

            Yes, 90% of the Army is REMFery.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            That’s WHOSE problem, exactly?

          • valorius

            From my perspective it’s your problem, obviously.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            Your the only one here with a problem.

          • valorius

            You’re.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            Logical fallacy. Grammar/spelling/typo mistakes don’t render an argument invalid. Try again.

          • valorius

            You made no argument, you issued an ad hominem insult.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            You’re the one with the problem. That’s not an insult. It’s an observation based on the record on this thread. You challenged someone about the process. That person actually knows something about the process (I’ve sent guys to places like Crane for the classes, so don’t even start.) You say “I don’t trust you.” They challenged you to tell them something that they apparently know and you likely don’t (outbrief). You dodge the question because YOU can’t answer it. You play games. You have a smartass reply for everything, but no actual reply, just pseudo-arguments based on anecdotals, and highly questionable ones, at that.

          • valorius

            The process of how US Weapons are procured is quite broken. This is a fact that has been echoed literally thousands of times by countless experts in recent years.

            Fact.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            Does anyone here dispute that? No. Guess what, it was worse. Heard of DIVAD?

          • valorius

            No, i’ve never heard of the Sgt York that liked to blow up latrines.

  • Cosworth

    I’m confused. I understand adding a suppressor to a pistol because many pistol rounds are subsonic. But a military rifle is by definition high velocity and the bullet supersonic, and you can’t “suppress” the supersonic crack of a rifle bullet after it leaves the barrel. Working in the pits of a 300 and 600 yard range, the crack of the bullet arriving is very much louder than the distant boom of the sound from the barrel that arrives a second or two later. So what is this “stealth” for the Marine units that this guy is talking about??

    • Ron

      without the muzzle crack, you often see people distance unable to determine where they are being shot at from and they move to places that they still are not behind cover

    • KidCorporate

      The main point is that it’s easier to maintain command integrity when you don’t have to try to be heard above a cacophony of muzzle blasts. Also, the guys shooting them get to keep their hearing intact. Super ninja oper8in is more of a fringe benefit for your average squad of groundpounders.

    • iksnilol

      Simply put: If you hear the crack from 300-600 yards, you sure as heck ain’t hearing the muzzle.

      And which of those two sounds help more in regards to where you should take cover?

      • Cosworth

        I didn’t hear the supersonic bullet crack from 300-600 yards away, I heard it in the pits just under the target when the bullet arrived at the target. As the bullet is traveling faster than sound, the boom from the muzzle blast arrived about a second later. If you are being shot at on the battle field, the supersonic crack will be very loud (unless it hits you and you are dead). But in the target pits I wasn’t worried about taking cover.

        • iksnilol

          You sorta missed my point, if there wasn’t that muzzle blast… you’d have a harder time hearing where it was shot from. Because the bullet flies over you hella fast whilst carrying the soundwave.

          PLenty of videoes online that prove my point (both with hogs and humans, they don’t know where to run for cover).

    • When you suppress the muzzle blast, the direction you hear the supersonic crack come from ISN’T the direction the bullet was fired from — the crack basically comes from the direction of any object it passes by (as the “sonic boom” reflects off the objects).

      Normally, this effect gets overwhelmed by muzzle blast (yours and theirs), except when dealing with long range shots.

      In woods, one suppressed supersonic round can sound like a dozen individual shots from different spots. Makes it much more sporty to figure out where the people shooting are hiding…

      Plus, the troop shooting the gun isn’t deaf from muzzle blast or functionally deaf from foam earplugs, so his squad leader can actually use voice commands to control them without being in the same fighting position.

      These are all GOOD things for an infantryman.

  • pieslapper

    They were told they came with a free box of crayons… the BIG box.

    • Michael

      Omnomnomnom!

    • Timmah_timmah

      You know what they say…. Quickest way to any man’s heart is his stomach. Marines included!

  • iksnilol

    But valorious told me that integrally suppressed rifles are only for mall ninjas. And he’s always right since he was in Vietnam.

    • valorius

      I was not in Vietnam. And they are stupid.

      • iksnilol

        I should have gone fishing what with how good at baiting I am.

        • valorius

          If you build it, they will come.

  • JoshuaK27

    i dont understand why they would want 6 inches of 14″ barrel to be integrally suppressed, just seems like a waste of useful velocity. I mean it does make a stronger argument for the .300 as it only needs 9″ of barrel to burn the whole charge, make the last 5 inches the integrally suppressed part, booom problem solved.

    • CommonSense23

      Cause they aren’t wanting a 8 inch barrel. Its supposed to be a full 14 inches with a integral suppressor.

      • Bearacuda

        My thinking was they’d want a suppressor that goes over the barrel like the SR-25. Don’t know how they’d permanently attach it though.

      • JoshuaK27

        I think you need to look up the VSS for reference, the holes in the barrel start at about 4 inches to bleed off gas and velocity, if they switch to full system like the VSS they’ll need new ammo. Plain and simple. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/282e38bc58bb5031889917fd2054e4f96c670209f46f3e13fbb276d0bf64ac5f.jpg

        • CommonSense23

          And that’s not what is being pushed currently. The suppressed upper receiver that Socom is wanting to field is supposed to be delivering M4 like ballistics. Not 300BLK. This isn’t something like thr MP5SD.

          • JoshuaK27

            ok whatever man, when they say integrally suppressed the above picture is a textbook definition of such stated desire. You need barrel length to achieve velocity right? 5.56 needs at least 14 inches to have effective terminal velocity. they will have to develop either newer 5.56 loading or a whole different caliber, just like the Russians experienced.

          • CommonSense23

            I don’t think you seem to get the idea here. This isn’t supposed to be a VSS or MP5SD type weapon. The above picture is not what Socom is pushing for. What is being pushed is not just sound suppression, but IR reduction also. This is a whole different type of weapon then the VSS. The gun isn’t going to be running a ported barrel.

          • JoshuaK27

            Ok Frank whatever you wanna believe here

          • CommonSense23

            You do realize the SURG requirements are online. Its quite clear what they want. And it isn’t a ported barrel.

          • Timmah_timmah

            Wait a minute? You mean…. this is all based on factual requirements of the dept of defense? I thought we we’re just speculating wildly and comparing to random Russian programs for fun? Darn…

          • 14inchMyth

            BS! M855A1 fragments at really really low velocity, the whole 14″ myth is dated back to fmj bullets with fleet yaw.

            There was an engagement were an US Solider shot an Al Qaeda insurgent at way over 600meter with a damn 10″ barrel and really slow 77grain Mk262 OTM, no idea how he hit him. He was found not a single meter away from where he fell to the ground.

            Barrel lenght still ofcourse is important for a good trajectory, mpbr, low wind drift, high supersonic range.

          • JoshuaK27

            Youre whole statement is bs. You need barrel length for velocity, this is simple science, M855a1 will not fragment upon soft tissue at velocities below 1800fps. In fact i really dont even know why i replied to you……

          • Timmah_timmah

            I know this is a little off topic but it annoys me when everyone compares 300BLK to the MP5SD by default. That assumes subsonic rounds. But that doesn’t make sense in this case at all. This is all about supersonic ammo. Therefore, a 16″ AK would be far more comparable than an MP5SD. In this case no one would be using any subsonic ammo. Not the Marines style or need.

        • Timmah_timmah

          Why the hell would they ever want to bleed velocity off 556? There is no desire for extreme sound reduction in this requirement. You’re conflating two very different needs and uses.

          • JoshuaK27

            You dont get one without the other, whole point ensue thats just blowing right over your empty heads.

            Here let me put it to you plainly like Mrnocommonsense…..
            Integral suppression is when you have the suppressor wrapped around the barrel to minimize size (this is what the army desires) when you add per say “integral suppression you are going to lose velocity no matter what, as per the design thats what simply happens.

            are you really that dense to not know the difference.
            if they want the same 14.5 inches sticking out past the upper how much of it is suppressor and how much of it is barrel?

            have you no logic, jesuth…….

  • NukeItFromOrbit

    A good call, otherwise it isn’t horribly practical for widespread use. Also something has to be done to keep the thermal signature down to so don’t look like a spotlight on IR from 10 miles away. But I’ll believe the end-result when/if we see it.

    Wonder if this means the end of the bayonet lug?

  • Stuki Moi

    Can you realistically reduce barrel+suppressor length much at all with an integrated suppressor, without losing efficiency? You’re dealing with a fair amount of rather directional ejecta, that needs to be captured. Expecting it all to break around a 180 degree corner just because the silencer attachment is now done sans threads, seems a wee bit naive.

    • iksnilol

      You could by going with a behind the muzzle design (doesnt’ even need to be integral). Most suppressors in Norway don’t extend more than 7-10 cm in front of the muzzle.

  • valorius

    USMC sources were quoted as saying, “We want a weapon that’s as long as a 22″ barreled rifle, but with the ballistics of a 14.5″ carbine.”

    • iksnilol

      That’s an unrealistically long can to have.

      • valorius

        bare minimum you’re looking at a 6″ can on a 14.5″ barrel. So you’re lugging around a rifle that’s a tad heavier than an M16 without the 3300 fps goodness of the long barrel.

        For years M4 proponents have been bandying about it’s “handiness.” Well, a 21″ long M4 without the ballistics of a rifle is no longer handy.

        • iksnilol

          Meh, the extra long barrel of the M16 serves no purpose really. In all practical terms it’s a marginal difference. You give a soldier an M4 or M16 he should be able to hit at 500 meters with either with no issue.

          A good compact can doesn’t extend more than 4″ past the muzzle. Thus with the 14.5″ barrel it should be only 18.5″ long. Which is a 2″ difference vs a 14.5″ barrel +1.5″ flash hider. Hardly unwieldy like you enjoy whining about it being.

          • NukeItFromOrbit

            Still almost the length of a M16 for reduced performance. The colonel is right here, it will have to be integral to the weapon or else it’s too much of a hassle for general infantry.

          • iksnilol

            Not really, you got 4″ shorter barrel and you got the much shorter stock.

          • valorius

            It serves to increase fragmentation range, flatten trajectory, and increase mpbr.

            Oh.

          • iksnilol

            Again, you stubbornly ignore my point. It’s just an academic difference. It’s not like M4 Armed troops get outranged by AKMs where M16 equipped troops don’t.

            No wonder you survived. With that thick of a head a T-90 couldn’t go through.

          • valorius

            You’ve been wrong every time you’ve attempted to make your same wrong-headed point.

            An M16A4 with ACOG is a good counter to a SVD armed enemy SDM. An M4 is not.

          • iksnilol

            Considering that SVD guy can lie at 1000 meters and pick you off… no, those 4″ make no difference.

            And if I was wrong, I wouldn’t have been correct. M4s wouldn’t have been issued at all.

          • valorius

            Lots and lots of kit has been issues by lots and lots of nations that is totally unsuitable for it’s intended role. I’ve named three specific systems that fit that bill in this thread alone.

            In the hands of a typical SDM, a SVD has the same effective battlefield range as an M16A4 with an ACOG. It is not a 1000 meter weapon by any means under battlefield conditions.

          • iksnilol

            Soviets had no issues using it past 800 meters.

            An M16 with ACOG is at best an 800 meter weapon. More realistically a 600 meter one.

          • ActualNumbers

            So an propably already subsonic (“past 800”) bullet that became rather inaccurate, magically is usable much further than one that (600m) is still way supersonic?

            Give me the velocity/ or barrel lenght for an SVD and i calculate it.

            Or do you mean in therms of scopes? What magnification did the SVD had back then?

          • ActualNumbers

            Funfact – a only 14.5″ barreld M4 has 12% less drop at 600m than an 24″ barreld SVD, tough has +15% wind drift.
            A 20″ barreld M16 has 20% less drop, tough +9% winddrift.

            This will NOT result in 200meter the slightest.

          • ActualNumbers

            *i now also just checked the 7.62×54 D Ball, it has a bit less wind drift but an even worse trajectory.

          • iksnilol

            Drop is easy to compensate for, winddrift is a bit tougher.

          • valorius

            SVD is also unrealistically an 800 meter weapon in the typical SDM’s hands.

          • Except the new M855A1 round is specifically designed for OPTIMAL performance from a 14.5″ barrel, just like the M193 and M855 were designed for optimal performance from 20″ barrels.

            Using a 20″ barrel with M855A1 is (according to tests the USMC did with SAWs) actually a step back… all the extra pressure, not a gnat’s hair better performance.

            Pressure curves designed around barrel length… welcome to the New World. 😉

          • valorius

            A change in powder blend would optimize it for a longer barrel quite satisfactorily…and it would be clearly superior to the current overpressure round that we’ve fielded.

          • ActualNumbers

            Dude… it gives nothing more than +24yards vs M855A1 from an 14.5″ at 600yards in trajectory, and +35yards in winddrift…

            Thats nothing else than +4% and +5,83% … Your preference lets you totally overestimate it, and then get stubborn and salty, you seem to put personal feelings over hard facts.

          • valorius

            34 and 35 yards respectively are significant increases (amounting to an approx 10% overall increase in actual combat range). That is a hard fact.

          • ActualNumbers

            24 not 34 for trajectory (4%)

            And a 14.5″ Carbine for that tiny diffrence is one heck of a lot handier in urban combat and also for mechanized infantry, than a stupidly long rifle with a 20″ Barrel.

            The Barrel lenght used is driven by that fact, because why have a tiny +4% and +5,83% at 600yards, when the Rifle is really unhandy, and might you even get killed in close quarters, makes no sence at all.

            14.5″ is simply the best overall balance. This only changes with a bullpup, or even more with a CT bullpup (really high barrel lenght to overall lenght efficiency and downward ejection).

          • ActualNumbers

            *note: dont get me wrong i like 20, 18, and 16″ barrels from a ballistic perspective, it just dont work in therms of balance for a bottleneck cartridge normal carbine layout.
            Such a tiny diffrence in numbers at high range that you will hardly really notice, afterall will be insicnificant compared to the sicnificant diffrence of overall rifle lenght that becomes noticable every moment in urban combat. Its all just balancing.

          • valorius

            It’s no longer handier or lighter when it has a suppressor on it. It’s just a long rifle without the enhanced ballistics of a long rifle.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            Until the round gets to about 250 m and no longer makes the big exit wound (and that was per an old SEAL sniper aka “Mr. J.”) Past 250, the barrel length makes a difference. The SOCOM Mk18 shown only has a 10.5 in barrel precisely due to length issues suppressed – at least in part..

          • iksnilol

            hydrostatic shock is a myth in regards to “killing power”.

          • Anthony Kaiser

            “Distant injuries away from the main track in high velocity missile injuries are very important and almost always present in all cases especially in the chest and abdomen and this should be put in the consideration on the part of the forensic pathologist and probably the general surgeon.” Selman, ” Medico-legal Study of Shockwave Damage by High Velocity Missiles in Firearm Injuries”

          • iksnilol

            I don’t now what that technical talk means nor who “Selman” is.

            Again, if it was such a big issue. I doubt that the SPRs would work as well as they did. I mean, even with a long barrel 5.56 “loses its steam” before 500 meters. Yet all those DMRs had no issue past 500 meters (IE Travis Haleys video is pretty famous).

        • CommonSense23

          You realize that they are pushing for suppressors for the support weapons right.

          • valorius

            Suppressed Rocket and grenade launchers? Suppressed 60mm mortars?

            You’re living in an absolute fantasy world. Just like the Marines.

          • CommonSense23

            Grenade launchers don’t make much of a flash. Mortars are normally set up behind the like. Belts feds are looking to be suppressed.

          • valorius

            Flash? These suppressors are not for flash. They’re intended to mitigate audible cues.

            60mm mortars can and do operate right alongside forward elements. And you’re sure not going to suppress a LAW rocket, Carl Gustaf or Javelin missile.

  • valorius

    A Marine spokesman stated that “The USMC will no longer issue machine guns, rockets, grenades or mortars to it’s infantry forces, because the noise they make reduces the command and control ability of our officers in combat.”

  • RealitiCzech

    So… how do you make a suppressor white-glove clean?

  • rychastings

    marines will want integrally suppressed rifles until they find out that the armory folks will become 10x more stickler about cleaning them

  • BeoBear

    I’m not really sure the Marine in the video actually knows what suppressors are for. He seems to think that they reduce noise for the sake of making it easier for soldiers to communicate and do their jobs more efficiently. I’m not sure where he gets that kind of nonsense, silencers are designed for and good for only one thing and that is the ability to commit gun related crimes in total silence thus making it impossible to be caught by law enforcement. I know this because I see it reported in the news on TV all the time, they couldn’t say it if it wasn’t true you know.

  • Timmah_timmah

    What do you mean ports to tune the rifle? Huh? Bleed off gas block? Curious what you are referring to.