>Talking to two fudds >One of them mentions "silencers"

/k/ - My Personal Blog

Nice blog post.

>>28532483
this,

also

>2016
>talking to fudds

>>28532477
Don't. Ignore them, buy an AR if you dont have one and operate without caring what hicks think

>>28532477
>It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick
Obviously, because silencers remove small shavings of material from the bullet as it passes through the silencer, therefore reducing its mass, kek.

#REDNECKSCIENCE

>>28532477
>How to reason with this kind of people.
You don't.
Also nice blog faggot.

>>28532477
Such an amazing story. I feel enlightened by reading your blog, OP.

*tips

>>28532494
I don't understand how can the think that if the bullet doesn't lose speed and it remain intact, how can it lose "kick".

I don't understand this logic.

>>28532477
Why did you even respond to him after "The only point of one is to kill someone without anyone hearing the shot" part? He was clearly retarded after that.

It's only going to drop the sound to tolerable levels, not take a fucking .303 and make it go "pewp" like in the movies.

>>28532477
If the bullet can still kill a man why come it wouldn't kill a deer?

>>28532514
Redneck can't into science, bro

Point out that farmers in Britain, France, New Zealand, etc. use suppressed firearms for pest control all the time.

In New Zealand you can buy a suppressor online and have it shipped to your front porch.

http://www.guncity.com/silencers/centrefire-silencers

>>28532494
>the a supressor actually acts as a squeeze-bore adaptor
>turns a regular round into an armour-piercing cop-killer

There probably isn't any point in arguing with them, they're most likely set int their ways. You can try though, I had a similar story the other day.

>be behind the other side of the counter at a big box store
>handling a 4473 for a customer buying an 870 Express
>he has a ton of other assorted family and friends with him
>one of them asks if we sell suppressors
>tell them no but I'm waiting on a Form 4 at a nearby LGS
>the oldest one in the groups asks why I would even need one
>explain that it's mainly for hearing protection
>that I've shot a lot of firearms without ear pro because of being and young and dumb muhreen
>they all agree

File: Demolition-Ranch-Nutshellz.jpg (59KB, 706x521px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 706x521px

>>28532545
>implying

File: 1417075922909.jpg (140KB, 537x750px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 537x750px

>>28532477
Stupid Git, if its louder its obviously stronga and fasta. To make it quiet is to take away stopping power!
>mfw 'Umies cant into superior Redneck Ork logic

They are right though. Unless your weapon is custom made for a silencer you will lose some power.

>>28532613
how?

>>28532613
0/8

File: HurrrrrDurrrrr.gif (105KB, 232x297px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 232x297px

>>28532613

>>28532577
He doesn't consider himself a redneck, though.He thinks its offensive.

I'm pretty sure he's not, too.

>>28532477

I call them stupid to their fat fuck face, then relentlessly berate them on their lack of knowledge. They deserve it, and won't change their bull shiting niggery ways till someone pushes their shit in.

Unless it's at an indoor range, don't want to make the owner sad.

>>28532576
At least they listen to reason

File: e77.png (38KB, 604x439px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 604x439px

>Go to old surplus store
>Some fudd looking old men are talking to owners
>"Goddam state wont issue me gun license"
>"Its ok I can buy a muzzle loader without a license and get the powder from the next state over"
>"They arent gonna stop me protecting my home"
>I picture him missing his first shot and shitting himself when the robber starts shooting back

MFW I realize the gentleman looked like a old pedo, cant get a license cause of felonys and is yelling about this in a run down surplus store.

>>28532613
Call of Duty tell you this?

>>28532687
He graduated from Texas A&M and spends his spare time shooting things innawoods.
I don't care how smart and professional he is, he's a redneck

>>28532860
To be fair, a nice high end muzzleloader with a nice speedloader can be reloaded pretty quickly.

>>28533005
As quickly as a dindu can pull the trigger on a hi point after the first shot?

Don't think so.

>>28533124
Use some extra blackpowder so the dindu will be too shocked by all the smoke.
Or get a few extra muzzleloaders

>But in Cowadoody the silencer makes the gun less powerful

>talking about guns irl

you're cruisin fro a bruisin, OP. not everyone spends a portion of their time on the internet obsessing over guns every day, so naturally they're gonna have stupid pleb opinions.

in situations like this, when everyone but you is retarded, you just go with the flow man. silencers make guns do less damage and are only used by assassins are criminals.

>>28532860

In what state do you need a license to buy a gun?

>>28532687
He has a Playlist labeled "redneck science"

He was making a joke when he said he didn't like being called a redneck. It was a setup to introduce his ar converted into a bullpup configuration with a bit of wood and a hacksaw blade trigger linkage.

Why don't all guns have silencers built into?

>>28533582
IL requires a foid, which is basically a gun permit if I'm understanding things correctly.

>>28533582
It's not a licence but in california you need a firearm card.

The only thing you have to do to get it is answer a stupid easy 30 question quiz

File: 1452702772402.png (107KB, 151x379px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 151x379px

>>28532860
Do you not know that there exist muzzle loaders with 6/7 shots? Wheel guns from before cartridges where made. And they are perfectly adequate for home defense, and do not require a license.

>>28533582
Im in MA, we also cant order ammo thru the mail so the only way to save money is reloading.

>>28533671
So you automatically assuming this guy was gonna buy the cream of the crop of muzzle loaders?

I can't wait for fudd boomers to die out, they're a cancer killing the gun community. They allowed the 94 AWB and Hughe's Amendment to happen, and they'll allow another one.

>>28533682
>cant order ammo thru the mail
That violates the Commerce Clause. Where's the class action lawsuit?

>>28532477
>the only reason you need a silencer is to kill someone with anyone hearing the shot

He's right you know. Also hunting with a silencer is illegal in most places and if not it's incredibly unsportsmanlike. Hate to sound like a gun grabber or fudd but you really do have zero use for a silencer.

>>28533693
I'll take that as a no. They are not special or high end. They are common and cheap. You can get one in the most librul of states for like $200. Ammo is cheap and common as well. Only requirement is that you are over 18.

Anon, Zeus does not step down from mount Olympus to argue with shepherds about the weather.

File: breakfastguy.jpg (41KB, 1000x899px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 1000x899px

>>28533715
>He's right you know. Also hunting with a silencer is illegal in most places and if not it's incredibly unsportsmanlike. Hate to sound like a gun grabber or fudd but you really do have zero use for a silencer.
Self/home defense without going deaf.

>>28533715
>>28533752
>He's right you know. Also hunting with a silencer is illegal in most places and if not it's incredibly unsportsmanlike
Also, its only unsportsmanlike if bow and arrow is also unsportsmanlike.

>>28533715
How is hunting with a suppressor unsportsmanlike?

fun fact: the original restrictions on suppressors arose out of a fear that, during the Great Depression, the poor would poach cattle and other animals for food

>>28533766
Got a source? I'm too curious to ignore this, but also too lazy to use Google

>>28533752
But you will never defend your home anon, no one actually breaks into houses or anything

Face it you will never need a silencer, give it up you bloodthirsty /k/ommando

>>28532522
Because it's not my car driving at highway speeds with the lights on and the horn blaring.

I mean, you're pretty much limited to heavier caliber sub-sonic ammo, which is going to be less flat shooting.

So while he doesn't know what he's talking about in physics, he does know that hunting with a suppressor would suck.

I personally want one so that yes, if I had to defend myself in my home and shoot someone, it would not fucking ruin my hearing, and I could actually get effective and accurate follow ups.

>>28533777
Silencer History and Performance p. 9-11
I could type up the text if you'd like.

Real question:

If suppressors are so amazing, and don't reduce accuracy or effectiveness, why doesn't the military give it to their infantry? Or adopt integrated suppressor designs for a new rifle?

In b4 it's too expensive, because it wouldn't be that much if they incorporated it into a design to replace the m16/m4

File: 1446497153137.jpg (73KB, 852x960px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 852x960px

>>28532687
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXQk6_dg_c4

>>28533838
they take a fair amount of maintenance.

>>28533607
pretty decent question.

why dosnt some company produce a .300blk rifle with a silencer permanently attached? The fixed muzzle device would be considered part of the barrel by law. And since a "silencer" is anything that reduces the noise produced by a weapon while firing, it would be good to go, since the attached muzzle device dosnt reduce the allready quiet sound made by a factory firearm

>>28533838
>If suppressors are so amazing
They are amazing. The things they're amazing at just don't help the basic infantryman out.

>>28533758
They can't hear the bullet moving towards them, no chance for them to move out the way.

>>28533838
They have a useful life of only about 3,000 rounds.

>>28533869
>why dosnt some company produce a .300blk rifle with a silencer permanently attached?
Daniel Defense does.

>>28532606
But wot if i paint my shoota red to make it go fasta? oomies not know wat hit 'em

File: 2016-01-13 15.08.52.jpg (414KB, 810x1440px) Image search: [Google]

414KB, 810x1440px

>>28533891
and I can just buy the complete rifle with mo fancy NFA forms?

>pic related
it wouldnt be silencing, muffling, or diminishing anything because its allready quiet from day 1

>>28533875
Being able to engage a threat without him being able to pinpoint muzzle flash or cracks of your shots as easily?

I know we have flash hiders and stuff, but it's still pretty easy to detect where gunfire is coming from. I can't imagine a suppressed shot from 300-400m is going to be easy to track aurally.

Also, just being able to have infantry who can go without hearing protection 24/7, without fear of hearing damage or discomfort from loud gunfire

>>28533924
no* fancy

>>28533924
ATF doesn't care.

>>28533930
>>28533924
I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine when you're getting the patent approved, and the committees engineers ask "so what is this porting here? And this here?"

And you have no answer other than "to reduce the sound", you've effectively built an NFA firearm under those strict definitions in your image

>>28533926
>Being able to engage a threat without him being able to pinpoint muzzle flash or cracks of your shots as easily?
Not the job of the basic infantryman.

>>28533957
it is to reduce the sound, but the ATF definition refers to something added to an existing firearm that reduces the sound it makes.
For example: M4 with birdcage: 100db
M4 with silencer: 50db

my gun, from the factory: 50db

Im not ADDING anything to try to deminish the report of the rifle. Under the ATF definition thats not illegal.

>>28533956
so?

>>28533806
If you don't mind, yeah. On mobile, and getting a PDF of this is harder than it should be.

>>28533957
and ideas/designs do not require patents before production so thats pointless.

Whats stopping me from building an 80% with a welded on silencer from day 1?

>>28533993
>the ATF definition
Will be redefined by the ATF to include your product.

>>28533993
and expanding on this definition, wouldnt putting a longer barrel on some firearms be a supressor? Like if I build an AR10 with a 10" barrel, and a ridiculous 6" muzzle device (not a silencer in any way), then later swapped out uppers for a 20" barrel, that would reduce the noise, right? Unburnt powder exploding out of short barrels and such

>>28533715
>I can't think of a reason
>Therefore there isn't one

Found the fudd.

>>28533715
This is why I hate /k/, if you are a troll then good one. You made me rage.

>>28534003
Quote:
Although the movies show silencers being used by villains of the period, I have found only a single documented case of a crime committed with a silencer prior to the Gun Control Act of 1934. Two men used silenced rifles to kill six horses on a New Jersey farm, and they attempted to extort $800 from the farmer as the price for sparing the rest of his livestock. The scoundrels were caught, but the salient point is that one misuse of technology does not constitute a crime wave.

Apparently, silencers were subjected to the same controls as machine guns in 1934, because the Great Depression created a lot of hungry people. Few of us today understand the depth and breadth of hunger in America during the Depression. William Manchester writes in his memoir about combat during World War II, Goodbye, Darkness, that "in 1940 two out of every five draftees had been rejected, most of them victims of malnutrition." That suggests that at least 40 percent of the adult population was not getting enough food during the Depression.

Thus, it is at least understandable that the pandemic hunger in the United States of the early 1930s led game managers to fear that silencers might be used by poachers and that this fear led to the heavy restrictions that were placed on silencers in 1934.

Even though legal silencers are once again becoming commonplace in the United States, according to federal government records on one registered silencer in the hands of a civilian as ever been used for poaching or any other illegal act since 1934. The only two illegal actions involving registered silencers or machine guns since 1934 involved law enforcement officers who ran amok, not civilians.[1] Thus, civilian owners of registered silencers and machine guns have a better track record as law-abiding citizens than the law enforcement community, the United States Congress, and even the Presidency itself.

Note 1: This book was published in 96. The N. Hollywood Shootout occurred in 97.

File: pkbJQhSl.jpg (54KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x480px

>>28533838
Tons of military use suppressors. It's usually special forces and whatnot, but you'll occasionally see regular grunts with them.

Here are some reasons why they aren't issued to every soldier:

>Additional weight
>Additional length
>If you shorten the barrel to deal with the above, you lose muzzle velocity and a bit of accuracy
>The gas system in most AR's needs to be tuned for suppressors for maximum reliability/lifespan.
>Additional blowback, though this one isn't really an issue.

Basically, it's additional cost/logistics for not a whole lot of gain, with some exceptions (special forces). If hearing damage/tinnitus becomes a costly problem for the DOD, we could see this change.

If they did implement it, the suppressor would probably be permanently attached to the barrel.

>>28533682
You can buy ammo online in MA. The dealer has to be licensed by the state to do so.

It's a bullshit part of our oppressive firearm laws.

>>28534098
(cont.)
The Gun Control Act of 1934 forced people in the Unite[d] States to destroy their silencers or register them. The original owner had a brief amnesty period in which to register the silencer without cost. If not registered within that period, the silencer became unregisterable contraband, which could subject the owner to a big fine and jail sentence. Most owners never got the word in time. Others decided it was too much trouble since each time a register silencer was sold, the new owner had to pay a $200 transfer tax. That was an incredible amount of money in the depths of the the Great Depression. Therefore, few Maxim silencers survive to this day,and these tend to be expensive. Some models perform well by modern standards. Others do not. After the Gun Control Act of 1934, the user of silencers in the Untied States virtually ceased.

Some people are nearly impossible to reason with, even with actual data, because certain ways of thinking are too ingrained in their head. For example, I know an old cop who, while being a great guy, oftentimes will debate things or criticize 7.62x39mm for being too large compared to 5.56 while swearing that 9mm is completely inadequate compared to his .45 1911 no matter how many more bullets yours can hold.

This wouldn't be a problem and in general, they could be safely ignored, except that these same people vote on policy and representatives based on this incorrect way of thinking. This is why shit like the import ban and NFA goes through with little opposition, because it doesn't directly affect them, they believe. My recommendation is that if you're going to make an effort to convince them of something, don't expect to win them over in 10 minutes. The only way you're going to change someone's thinking is if you present a clear argument and give them time to mull over the information on their own.

>>28534015
Yeah ATF loves to redefine everything, those fags

>>28534056
No, it is still a barrel. No way can a rifled barrel act as a supressor, so what if it happens to be quieter from a larger barrel? Still not a supressor mane. NOT A SUPRESSOR ATF PLS GO

>>28534191
>"ANY DEVICE for silencing, muffling, or diminshing the report of a portable firearm."

for ARs, the lower reciever is the firearm. ANYTHING else that you would change on that rifle that diminishes the report would be a silencer, per ATF definition.

Plenty of range stories out there of guys being annoyed by dudes with extra short barrels and their crazy loud muzzle blasts.

>>28532477
>Amerifat fudds being fat and fudd
nothing surprising.
Here in Europe, it's almost recommended to use suppressors, since it's safer for the shooter and using one obviously reduces the noise to the environment as well.

>>28533766
Shot happened anyway. When people are starving there isn't much that will get them to stop.

>>28534252
they were illegalized because of poaching. James Bond movies brought about the "secret assassin" conotation of the silencer.

File: wut1.jpg (21KB, 450x299px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x299px

>>28532477

>Hunting with ear protection

>>28533856
So doas everything else.

>>28534325
tbm I'm amazed more people don't use the electronic ear pro. Full sound, maybe even amplified depending on how much you spent, yet no risk of EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

>>28534325
I hunt with my 44 magnum revolver with ear protection.

Problem?

>>28534360

probably because decent ones are expensive and ear muffs are uncomfortable.

I have a molded set for shooting competitions but I don't use them to hunt.

>>28534432

Nope, but it's not a good argument for Suppressor support.

The majority don't hunt with ear protection.

>>28532568
Can confirm. First rifle I ever fired was a .22 with surpressor. Good times

>>28534432
I hunt with hearing protection and still seem to get my goddamn bell rung by 5.56 every time.

>>28533794
I thought you had a van, Mr. White?

>>28532477
'cheeki breeki'

>>28533703
>>28533582
MA. You have to have a license to own a gun or ammunition. "Ammunition" includes BP, so while BP guns are not regulated it is illegal to possess BP without a license.
We also have a registration scheme that isn't called registration. When you buy a gun you have to send a form to the state with all your personal info + the serial, make and model of the weapon.

>>28534360
electronic ear pro is shit. There's nothing directional to it.

Definitely better than regular hearing protection, but I'd much rather hunt with a suppressor than hearing protection.

>>28533869
MSAR makes a barrel with permanent supressor in .300 Blk for their shitty AUG clone. I wouldn't trust it.

>>28534230
DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS DAMMIT

>>28532477

Lace their tea with polonium op, it's the only way. Only then can they properly appreciate how bad it is to be wrong about things.

>>28533802

Yeah but like, imagine a suppressed .45-70...

File: 1451327107975.jpg (67KB, 577x667px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 577x667px

>>28534437
>ear muffs are uncomfortable.
How's that huge vagina treating you?

>>28532687
he fired a shotgun underwater in a creek to see what would happen

>>28534137
I'm a little late on this, but thanks anon. I'm gonna have to fish up the rest of this book later

>>28533496
Pirate style with a belt full of pistols

File: Boondock_1.jpg (82KB, 640x427px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 640x427px

>>28534850

>>28534720
He probably has sand in it.

>>28534850
That's how I plan on CCing.
4 flintlocks. HAVE AT YE, SCURVY DOGS!

File: 0028-1336426429320.jpg (6KB, 200x138px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 200x138px

>>28533629
i missed 20 of the 30

one that i knew the other was about the location of the caliber mark on the pistol revolver and rifle

i missed the revolver

>>28533957
>"to reduce the sound"
heat shield

As soon as someone tells me they are a gun owner and that they hunt a lot I disregard their opinion. Most of them have a hunting rifle, shotgun and maybe a revolver and don't know jack shit about guns and think "assault weapons" should be banned.One told me the other day, "Well just take away those big clips, nobody needs those.

>>28533869
Even though it's a built in device it still counts as a suppressor because it is purpose built to reduce noise, whether it's factory or not doesn't matter. You can however take a barrel that would normally be an SBR, permanently affix a suppressor and avoid having a second stamp for the short barreled rifle, just one for the can. Griffin Armament makes one set up for that.

>>28533924
>>28534056
One of the key factors here is that the barrel is integral to the functioning of the firearm. The baffles are not and serve no purpose but to suppress sound. You might be able to get away with it (maybe) by designing a new action that by function end up quieter, but not design things into it that do nothing but.

>talking to guy at LGS that I thought knew his shit and I somewhat actually respected his opinion on things
>I mention that I'm getting into long range target shooting and we start talking about rifles and scopes
>He mentions that he dropped $2K on a Zeiss because "I was always taught that you need to spend twice as much on your glass as you do on your rifle", and it took him a year to pay it off
>mfw I have a $230 optic on a $600 gun
>I ask him how he likes it, and if it's mil/mil
>"no man, it's BDC"
>Oh neat, so it matches for your 300WM? Even out pretty far?
>"Yeah, it's calibrated for a .30 cal bullet"
>uhhh.....
>You sure it's not mils or moa?
>"No man, I said it's calibrated for a .30 cal bullet..."

>>28533883
For real?

>>28535243
To be fair everyone has a weak spot in their preferred subject. You shouldn't discount a large base of knowledge because of a few errors, assuming he is generally knowledgeable.

>>28532568
So what you're saying is, make friends with someone from NZ, and have them ship me a... we'll call it a cylindrical paperweight. No paperwork required.

>>28533912
You kommandos always mucking about. Git to fightin proper

>>28535243
I know nothing about long range shooting. What is the correct rule for glass?

>>28535336
machine part

>>28534230
BAN ASSAULT BARRELLS NOW THINK OF THE CHILLUNS

File: 1377474873782.gif (3MB, 384x301px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 384x301px

>>28532477

Thank God you brought this to our attention OP. We'll get right on it.

File: 1452232070394.jpg (57KB, 500x400px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x400px

>hammered fired adds more power to your pistol than striker fired

>>28535841
But doesn't a hammer hit the firing pin harder so the chances of a light strike are less?

>>28532477
>complaints about quieter guns with less recoil being less powerful even when using the exact same ammunition producing the exact same velocities
Are you sure you weren't talking to orks?

>>28533124
Or ... I dont know get a black powder revolver.

>retard says something retarded
>fuck off retard
How have you made it this far not knowing this OP?

>>28535412
You get what you pay for, but make sure you research what you're paying for before you pay for it.

>>28535875
What's the difference in spring mechanics between striker and hammered fired?

>>28536077
Doesn't a hammer generally have more mass and length of travel?

>>28536138
Ifk desu family I don't own funz yet

>>28532477
> talking
There's where you messed up.

>>28532570
actually homes in on cops. I read this on the internet so I know it's true.

File: Tomoe.Mami.full.1068375.jpg (635KB, 1094x774px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 1094x774px

>>28533496
>Or get a few extra muzzleloaders

>>28533582
MN has permit to purchase for pistols, but the shall-issue CCW is a valid, permanent substitute.

>>28533715
Fuck you. You're wrong, you're stupid, and you're counterproductive to reasonably taking back rights the NFA stole based on lies.

1: Suppressors do not make a shot silent, just quiet enough to shoot outdoors without protection.
2: You are less disruptive to nature with a suppressor.
3: Suppressors tend to make a rifle more accurate, meaning there's a higher chance of a clean kill.

>>28536077
>>28536138
Nice the spring actions are just how I imagined so I guess the force of the two could be different if say force needed to stretch a spring x cm takes y much and the force released from a compressed spring x cm is y.

>>28533882
The bait is strong with this one.....

File: 1452195644862.jpg (40KB, 582x600px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 582x600px

>>28536405
Oh forgot the link here it is if you're interested
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fpeK17grpI&app=desktop

Semi related question, /k/, on a video I saw years ago that's since vanished

It was of a guy firing a full auto AR 15 with a 10 inch barrel, with a SCAR-L suppressor and CMAG drum
Basically it was to show why a setup like that is problematic, as flames started shooting out of the suppressor and magazine well...

Anyone else seen it, or even better have a link?

>>28534101
>If hearing damage/tinnitus becomes a costly problem for the DOD, we could see this change.
They've found it cheaper to just make some form of combat earpro, either plugs with impulse control valves or active headsets (MSA/Peltor) or plugs (Quietpro) than to bother with mass-issue of a device that has a relatively short useful life and could see maintenance/wear issues in soldier hands.

>>28532477
A salesperson at a gunshow said that the rotating action on a tri barrel shotgun is faster than a semi auto shotgun.

I didn't know whether or not to believe him.

File: 1440066098750.jpg (142KB, 533x688px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 533x688px

>>28532606
>those fucked up proportions
I guess Orkfags are stupid as Orks.

>>28533715
The ONLY reason silencers are restricted for hunting is because of poaching.

>>28535221
a muzzle device is not integral to the functioning of a firearm, yet they are considered part of the barrel. A fixed muzzle device, barrel, and barrel extension are al l"the barrel" according to the ATF, and a barrel is very much so integral to the functioning of a firearm.

Thats why you can use a 10" barrel provided all the other things permanently attached to it are greater than 16" or you have an SBR obviously.

my logic is undeniable

>>28535061
I missed one at the end because I read it wrong and I wanted it to be over with because >Bass pro takes SIX MILLION YEARS TO DO ANYTHING
and I felt like a fucking retard. God, imagine how you must feel.

>>28537696
If you had a 10" barrel and a 6" silencer (with tax stamp), does that mean you wouldn't need a tax stamp for the barrel?

>>28537759
if its permanently attached you only need the silencer stamp

File: 1445645923495.jpg (25KB, 501x501px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 501x501px

>>28533715

>>28537797
Neat.

File: uJkzIfF.jpg (862KB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

862KB, 3264x1836px

>>28532477
>>Fudd 2 replies: It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick, you can't kill an animal with a weak bullet

What the fuck am I reading

>>28532477

1. Say the same thing.
2. When bullet power/killing power gets mentioned, say this: "Thats why I cut a cross on the front of the bullet so it explodes in the target. My uncle was with the special forces in nam, he used to shoot VC with prepared bullets and silencer. If you shoot with silencer and listen you can hear the bullets explode in the targets.
3. ???
4. PROFIT

>>28533838
They do
It's just on one platform - the M110 (it's a BII standard issue item with this rifle - which is issued standard to snipers and designated marksmen now).
As for suppressors on M4's and SAW's, there is no reason for regular grunts, everyone can order them provided they have unit funds, Infantry scout platoons usually keep a few for M4's in their arms rooms.

Also in Russia regular infantry scouts can get issued the VSS/VSK/etc integrally suppressed 9x39mm guns

>>28537866
A story about a conversation that never happened.

File: 1452496317245s.jpg (3KB, 125x115px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x115px

>>28533882

8/10

File: 1448051065522.gif (4MB, 600x338px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 600x338px

>>28532477
>It might not lose speed but the bullet will have less kick
Kinetic energy, how does it work?