Posted on 12/03/2016 5:05:50 AM PST by marktwain
The Marine Corps is considering suppressing all small arms. Military organizations have historically been slow to adopt new technologies. They have been slow to adopt optical sights, which were overwhelmingly adopted by sportsmen long before they become common for ordinary soldiers. In the U.S. that was during the first Gulf War.
Suppressors have been commonly used by sportsmen around the world for decades long before widespread adoption by any military. The United States is the exception, due to irrational regulation.
The Marine Corp is in the process of equipping an entire battalion with suppressed small arms. From ameriforce.net:
In a series of experiments this year, units from 2nd Marine Division will be silencing every element of an infantry battalion — from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns.I have often thought that widespread suppressor use would be positive for the military. A common reason for not having suppressors has been the idea of suppressive fire. Suppressive fire is not guns using suppressors. It is the idea that if people are shooting at you, you will keep your head down and not shoot back. If the people shooting at you are using suppressors, you will not be as aware that they are shooting at you, or so goes the argument.
The commanding general of 2nd Marine Division, Maj. Gen. John Love, described these plans during a speech to Marines at the Marine Corps Association Ground Dinner this month near Washington, D.C.
The proof-of-concept tests, he said, included Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, which began an Integrated Training Exercise pre-deployment last month at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms.
“What we’ve found so far is it revolutionizes the way we fight,” Love told Military.com. “It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn’t really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons. Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control and effectively direct those fires.”
Very true, but still has a lot of potential benefits. My ears ring all the time from "plinking" and other such activities w/o ear protection - even .22LR from a rifle causes damage.
You can put one on it but you’ll smoke that can in just a few hundred rounds of continuous firing. Those cans adsorb a tremendous amount of heat.
Doesn’t the M-60 come with a quick change barrel?
The problem is that all the extras make the soldier’s load much heavier, until they destroy their knees and feet attempting to carry it all!
An M-60 can would probably weigh 5 lbs!
“Doesn’t the M-60 come with a quick change barrel?”
Yes it does.
While I believe you could build a lighter suppressed barrel system for the 60 it would still have the same problem with heat build up.
You cannot escape the laws of thermodynamics.
The Maxim solved the problem by being water cooled.
I believe it weighed substantially more. There is a reason most military establishment now use general purpose machine guns.
they are a bit unwieldy 
“Too late for me. Loss of (high end) hearing, plus pretty bad tinnitus thanks to 13 months on an 8” howitzer (VN).”
Same here Brother!
D Company. 1/502 Infantry (Airmobile}.
For my senior trip I got to spend 11 months slopping around in the beautiful A Shau valley at a quaint little resort called FSB Bastogne. Never a dull moment!
If purpose built, a suppressed M4 barrel can be made essentially the same length as an unsuppressed barrel.
Ammo optimized for suppression (like the 300 AAC) makes it even more effective.
My next AR build will be 10.5” barrel suppressed by SilencerCo.
Every time I hit the range, I ask if anyone on the firing line wants to shoot my suppressed .45 XDm.
Trying to give others the silencer bug, and grow our numbers.
“The cost is expected to be $700,000 for an infantry battalion. A fully staffed infantry battalion is close to 1,000 people.”
“700 bucks a pop. Uncle Sammy should be able to swing a better deal than that.”
That was my first thought as well, especially since the actual material cost of a silencer, even titanium, doesn’t come close to $700. However, after putting a bit more thought into it, there’s ways the price could go up depending on a number of variables, which I’m sure you’re familiar with. There’s the cost of quick release mounts, if they decide to go that route. There’s the troops that carry more than one firearm, making the number of firearms in the battalion higher than the troop number. Then the cans for larger calibers obviously come with a higher price. Add the additional cost of keeping some extras on hand and that $700 per unit estimate doesn’t seem all that bad. I’m not sure how they’ll go about awarding the contract, but I certainly hope ALL current U.S. manufacturers can compete for it, including the small time start ups. IF the “experiment” is successful, and more/all battalions are to be equipped with suppressors, suppliers will set up more efficient production lines which will hopefully have the effect of becoming much more competitive in their pricing across the board, translating to lower prices for the public consumer retail market. It really sucks right now to pay more for a simple tubular muffler than for the much more complex and costly firearm it attaches to.
Sounds like the end of a whip when it goes by.
“* Effect of the silencers on muzzle velocity, trajectory, accuracy?”
You asked a question that’s about equal to asking “what’s the best ammunition caliber?” There’s just way too many variables. There’s hundreds, or even thousands of correct answers.
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/index.php
“The amount of titanium to produce silencers is probably trivial...”
I’ve often wondered why none of the larger silencer manufacturers haven’t started incorporating other lightweight materials such as carbon fiber or polymers into their silencers. Perhaps it’s heat related issues, but it seems that weights could certainly be reduced, especially for the larger calibers.
Around WW 1 they put silencers on 1903 Springfields and set out to test the silencing ability. The range they were using had a row of power line poles parallel to the flight of the bullet. Though the gun blast was almost silent every time the bullet past a pole it would leave an audible crack from the faster than sound bullet. It went CRACK, CRACK, CRACK, CRACK, CRACK, Not to stealthy
I believe navy seals when using 9mm pistols use heavier weight, subsonic bullets so as to optimize the use of their silencers.
“...from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns.”
I sure would like to see a picture of an M2 with a silencer.
Couldn’t find one on the net.
Good questions. Probably worth testing as the Marines are doing. I expect that the Silenced M4’s will be a little nose-heavy and awkward for MOUT operations — but that could be overcome with a purpose built barrel. Again, worth testing.
Additional weight? Yes, an important consideration. But if the tactics change and there is indeed less need for suppressive fire, then the basic ammo load might be lessened. (I know, I know. The Grunts will carry as much as they can ALWAYS)
I want a suppressed .44 magnum revolver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.