http://www.military.com/daily-news/ 2016/11/22/corps-put-sil

great idea now the army can do silent takedowns like solid snake

>>33567949

Probably is, will definitely boost their morale when they forget to put earpro on.

Eventually all guns will be suppressed as technology becomes more advanced. Why not try it out?

As the units conduct training and exercises with suppressors, 2nd Marine Division is collaborating with the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab to collect and aggregate data. Weapons with suppressors require additional maintenance and cleaning to prevent fouling, and the cost, nearly $700,000 to outfit an infantry battalion, might give planners pause.

Why does it cost so much to clean suppressors? Is it because only armorers can do basic maintenance on the weapons?

>>33568062
Top sentence is a quotation, forgot to add in the quote marks or >

>>33568062
>700,000

Nigga rough estimate it costs 250,000 per Tomahawk missile and we just fired 60 of those motherfuckers to blow up a bunch of derelict fighter jets.

I say let's try it out, see if it increases combat effectiveness. I could see it being useful for squad communication.

>>33568120
Thank god the government has infinite money.

>>33567949
>http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/corps-put-silencers-whole-infantry-battalion.html
Its a good idea for everyone except the suppression weapons (240,249,etc)

>>33568157
I'm saying that $700,000 is chump change compared to what we already spend to test out a single battalion.

I know Lockheed-Martin and Boeing want every single penny of the government money but it can't hurt to at least try to think of the infantry every once in a while.

suppressors increase the amount of gas blasted back into the the receiver, which over time is an issue, but during a gunfight, the only downside of a suppressor is the added weight and length to the barrel. A grunt battalion with everyone suppressed will be a battalion that can better verbally communicate and coordinate during a gun battle.

>>33568062
Probably. Back in the Army, technically only armorers were allowed to swap out pistol grips or buttstocks on M4s. Obviously these are rules set for the lowest common denominator and ignored on deployment, but it gives you an idea of how much an average Joe is not trusted to not fuck up basic mechanical skills.

>>33568120
Tomahawks are 1.4 mil per missile but yeah

File: M240 supressed.png (363KB, 540x331px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 540x331px

>>33568062
I'm surprised it''s that cheap to outfit ann entire Battalion with Suppressors.

An Infantry Battalion has ~950 Marines. The plan in the article is to equip every M4, M27, M249, M240, and even M2 with a supressor. That total means ~1100 weapons each needing a supressor. 700,000/1100 = $640 per suppressor, which really seems pretty good, since I'm imagining supressors like for the M240 aren't that cheap.

File: f4c2a868a1285723dee1f0137bb1f8343edcc158dd04c2483ca212f1fc39c2bd_1.jpg (36KB, 499x377px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 499x377px

>>33567949
Won't suppressors lower their range and take away damage??

>>33568381
beat me to it
I think the other anon mistakenly read the article as $700,000 in increased maintenance alone, not even counting the initial cost of the cans

>>33568423
Exactly right. This is why snipers and special forces never use them.

>>33567949
Definitely, anything that increases the lifespan of a grunt is good for efficiency and morale. It will also undo Hollyjew misinformation's effect on the general public and will loosen laws back home. Maybe in ten years we'll be like the rest of the world and realize, if anything, not using a silencer is poor form.

File: supressed M27.jpg (77KB, 700x400px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 700x400px

>>33568120
It will cost $22,400,000 to equip every single grunt battalion, including the reserves. To put that in perspective that's less than the flyaway cost of a single UH-1Y Venom.

Extrapolating the average cost of supressors per Marine ($700,00/950 Marines = ~$740/Marine), equipping the entirety of the Marine Corps and Marine Corps reserve would cost $163,170,000 (220,500 Marines * &740/Marine). So for the cost of 2 F-35A's, you can equip every Marine down to fat reservists and POGs working at IPAC.

Either option really doesn't seem that terrible. My numbers are probably really far off from what it would actually cost to outfit the entirety of the Marines, since I'm extrapolating from an Infantry Battalion, but it should give some picture at how relatively inexpensive it would be. Every Marine Is given a $1.5k optic for his rifle and that signifiganltly enhances his ability to accurately see and engage the enemy. Being given the ability to better communicate, as well as the additional benefit of not giving away their location as easily, are worth the price, IMO.

This seems like a much better change than the quesitonable returns for equipping Infantry Battalions with IAR's. Either way, at least the Marine Corps is utilizing the current peace time to try to experiment and adapt rather than just sit around and start learning hard lessons through blood instead of sweat.

>>33567949
generally speaking, does it make sense that the enemy won't know there is an infantry battalion because they have suppressed rifles?

I would have thought the CAS and forward vehicles and/or helicopters raping stationary positions would've been a dead givaway what was coming.

>>33568596
Like a car muffler, this isn't what suppressors are for. At all.

Like a car muffler, they're there so that you won't have hearing damage after use without ear protection and can still communicate when using it.

Like a car muffler, they should come standard with all guns by now.

>>33568596
>>generally speaking, does it make sense that the enemy won't know there is an infantry battalion because they have suppressed rifles?
Suppressed rifles are still loud. They're just less hazardous to your hearing.

At long distances in cluttered environments those few dB might be the difference between barely hearing the gunshot and not hearing it at all, but that's about it.

>>33568423
not if they equip the stoppan power perk

>>33568706
Yeah but only lieutenants can equip that one

>>33568596
Firing unsupressed AR-15 with an 16" barrel is about 165 decibels loud.

This is extremaly loud, very few things are this loud, I can't even find a example of anything that would be comparable.

The threshold of pain is 140 decibels. Jet takeoff from 50 meters away is about 140 decibels. The decibel scale is logarithmic, so 10 dB more makes the sound 10 times louder. That would make the AR-15 discharge about 5000 times louder. Guns are fucking loud.

Suppressed AR-15 on the other hand is about 132-134 dB. This is still extremaly loud, louder than an ambulance siren, but below the threshold of pain and quiet enough to not damage your hearing immediately without prolonged exposure.

Supressors don't make guns quiet. Not even remotely close.

>>33568815
Saturn V produced 220 decibels

>>33568896
That is not a regular sound anymore, that's a shockwave.

>>33568815
>That would make the AR-15 discharge about 5000 times louder.
Fuck me I suck at math. It's only 316.228. My bad. That's still loud as fuck.

File: 1489118613802.png (279KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 640x360px

I talked about doing this like 10 fucking years ago, but everyone thought it was stupid and said the extra maintenance wouldn't be worth it so it would never happen.

>>33567949
>first Marines get PMAG Gen 3
>Now they get standard issue suppressors

>Army still has USGI mags and no suppressors

what sort of bizzaro world am I living in when the Marines get the cool shit before I do? t. Army Infantry

>>33568162
its an even better idea for those weapons. the gunners are the biggest target in a fight. Anything to help conceal their position and keep them alive while they put lead downrange is a plus. The enemy will still hear the crack of the rounds pass their head (it may even be louder as the suppressor will add a tad more muzzle velocity) . It'll suppress them just fine

>>33569005
They also got useful digital camouflage.

For carbines and close assault weapons, sure
>inb4 faggot armchair psychologists who think you need loud bangs to suppress Hadji
The dumbfucks will learn when they're being shot pretty quick; the slow learners will be dead

>>33567949

Even if it doesn't increase tactical flexibility to a noticable degree, it will greatly decrease the hearing damage done to their ears over a long term and doesn't add much weight to their loadout, so I would personally aprove.

>>33569039
You've got to think of the logistics of it though - GPMGs are going to shoot through suppressors fast, and they add weight and complicate barrel changes.

>>33568346
>block iv

Cmon now

>>33569069
Next you'll be saying that people should have gravity balanced exoskeletons so they don't blow out their legs/back

>>33569043
ouch.

I actually don't like the Army's new uniform. The digital pattern is supposed to disrupt your IR signature. The new ACUs can't do that. Sure, the taliban doesn't have FLIR scopes or anything, but it's a shortsightedness on the part of the army to assume that we'll never fight an enemy with IR capabilities.

should increase effectiveness when youre not worried about the guy next to you blowing up your ear drum because hes not on line. should make finding and hitting the targets easier.

>>33568552

And that's all assuming they just buy 230k fucking suppressors off the shelf (admittedly, I wouldn't be surprised if they did something like that these days)

I don't think it would be a huge stretch that they could get some kind of economy of scale buying in quantity.

Why not. If they have money for that why not.

>>33568963
Technology likely changed.

>>33568630
>they should come standard with all guns by now

Hearing protection act never.

>>33569290
Why are supressor regluations even a thing anymore? And why are they regulated all across the whole world? I don't think there is a single country that doesn't have some sort of regulations regarding supressors, ranging from tax stamps to bans.

They don't make firearms quiet, it should be common knowledge by now. All it takes to learn that is to either actually shoot a supressed gun or take 10 minutes to do some research on the internet.

Are people who write those laws really that fucking stupid/ignorant? Across the entire world?

>>33567949
Pro: saves ears, at least to some degree
Con: expensive

Probably worthwhile, if only because it might decrease the number of dumb faggots making those useless tinnitus threads.

>>33567949
Just watch here. Don't need to theorycraft. There are suppressors supposedly rugged enough for full auto mg fire now so it'd be interesting to seen them try it out more.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=OnBa0kCELpQ

>>33569379
>useless tinnitus threads
Knowing that there are retarded people who fucked their lives forever with their retarded neglect of hearing protection boosts my self-esteem. Also they are a great example of what not to do, best to learn from the mistakes of others.

I wouldn't call them uselss.

>>33569362
At least in New Zealand they aren't at all, except you need a license for the rifle. But anyone can own a suppressor AFAIK.

>>33567949
Whos suppressors are they buying and is it a publicly traded company?

>>33568381
Suppressors are incredibly cheap to make. Especially something with no need for multi caliber capabilities and fixed mounting system (as opposed to Silencerco interchangeable mounts). A fixed mount Gemtech Halo or KAC NT4 probably gets unit cost on a battalion level PO of sub $300.

M2 suppressors, yeah probably significantly spendier, this however being offset by cheap rifle suppressors.

File: CxnvZU2WgAAIK9-.jpg (140KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1200x675px

>>33567949

It is.

>>33568381
Don't use retail prices m8. Cans are cheap to make and can now be made extremely durably.
>>33569464
By purchasing bulk, they can probably get the price down even more.

>>33568963
It won't, a supressor is only going to be good for maybe a firefight, after that you get problems. Until there is a massive propellent breakthrough AND old ammo is all cycled out it's not going to happen

>>33569464
>>33569585
I wasn't using unit prices, instead just using some quick math basing it off the usual size of an Infantry Battalion, and the projected cost per unit. I'm assuming the cost also included costs associated to SL3, Maintenance, and Replacement.

suppressors increase bullet velocity (pew pew is faster). supressors lower muzzle flash (so they cant see you as well) supressors lower muzzle blast (so they dont see all the sand your muzzle is kicking up) DI AR with a suppressor is bad idea, the carbon that goes into receiver will build up fast and it will jam. if they are going with suppressors they need scars, 416 etc, anything with a gas piston system.

>>33567949
Seems like a bad idea to add another 6-8 inches to the already long and front heavy M16A4. Guess it is a pretty good idea for live fire training though.

>>33568423
Probably a meme post bite I'll bite. I doubt it would have that much effect on a rifle round especially at the shorter engagement ranges seen in the last two wars.

>>33569362
Britain, NZ and Finland have no real restrictions on suppressors.

>>33569856
That's because they have pretty tight gun laws in the first place. Obviously if they think you are a good enough person for a gun, what is a suppressor on top of it.

>>33569362
>Are people who write those laws really that fucking stupid/ignorant? Across the entire world?
yes.

>>33568423
suppressors add velocity.

>>33569362
The real problem wasn't violence against people, but poachers going undetected.

>>33568381 #
>since I'm imagining supressors like for the M240 aren't that cheap.
It's a small tube with baffles in it.

>>33568630 #
>Like a car muffler, they should come standard with all guns by now
Like a car muffler, they should have come standard with all guns a hundred years ago.

>>33569249 #
The technology was always there. It was the political will that was lacking. Those who knew, lacked the power. Those with the power to change things didn't care.

>>33569812 #
>Seems like a bad idea to add another 6-8 inches
There's no reason it has to be that long. Any sound reduction is better than none.

>>33570373
Goddammit. Fucking phone. I'm not deleting that again.

>>33570373
>Like a car muffler, they should have come standard with all guns a hundred years ago.
Problem with that is guns have a lot more solid contaminants in their exhaust gases than cars which are mostly gasses and high quality vapors. Really l mean silencers will have to be cleaned a whole shit ton more.

>There's no reason it has to be that long.
I mean the USMC still uses a lot of M16s and if you are only issuing stubbly little chodes it doesn't really seem to be of any benefit. Most basic hearing protection that you can buy for $20 can knock off 20dB from the sound wave, so why bother spending $100 on something that can't even do 20dB of reduction and needs to be cleaned regularly.

>>33570804

>no muzzle flash
>harder to locate your position by sound
>line units typically don't wear earpro in combat

Being easier on the ears is a side benefit.

>>33570804
USMC already switched to M4A1s. Are you guys from 2009? They are trying to buy more hk416s.

>>33568194
>amount of gas blasted back into the the receiver
>added weight and length to the barrel

So we switch our main battle rifle to a bullpup AK, problem solved.

(Or bullpup SCAR if you're an anti-russaboo)

>kek kek even more armory counts for armorers.

EVEN MORE SIGHT COUNT HEADACHES FOR JR OFFICERS.

Generals kek love to shit on lowers.

>>33571006
>piston
>suppresed
It's a bit louder. And it gets just as dirty. I'd say improve propellant tech and better coatings that make things easier to clean.

>>33568630
>>33568648

alright fair enough, I've never paid the stamp so I don't know how much the suppressor helps.

Somebody here brought up a really good point, wouldn't it seem that making suppressors really hard to come by would be making guns defacto harmful to health.
we have all kinds of seatbelt/helmet laws to protect against injuries but we have laws making protecting hearing harder, it doesn't make sense.
its like charging 1500 dollars to get a stamp for a helmet.

>>33567949
>Is this a good Idea? if no, why not?
weapons get hotter, faster
need to tune gas system for blowback
dirty as fuck

still worth it

>>33570278
Is that why SOF guys seem to prefer suppressed short-barrelled rifles? If you're gonna put a can on it, you might as well go with something small, in my opinion.

>>33571061
Yo. You want to try the SA bleed off gb and report back to arg?

>>33571075
no, i'm happy with my set up

>>33571006
The gas coming back into the gun is from the barrel, on all gas systems.

>>33571075
i was actually thinking of something like that just the other day, seems like a great idea.

if i build another upper, i'll try it with a standard upper.

>>33571100
Heard it runs cleaner and quieter.

>>33571030

Gun grabbers watched Hollywood films and decided suppressors are only used by assassins and make your gun where no one can hear it. Bunch of lawyers who have never used one before decided it sounded good and the rest is history.

Need to get conservative politicians to start giving a shit about this and push to take suppressors off NFA.

Would be entertaining to watch anti-gun lawmakers try to block it because "muh scary silent guns" and get btfo because their entire argument is based on bullshit.

Although I can forsee CNN and MSNBC doing shitty "investigative" reports where they go to the range and rent a suppressed .22 and are amazed by how quiet it is.

>>33571121
Yeah but couple that with the AR's already dirty mechanism and you're going to increase failure rate by a lot.

>>33569100
If the technology for exoskeletons was as mature as silencers, fuck yeah those should be issued to every MOS that carries more than 50lbs on a regular basis.

>>33568381
Sounds about right to me.

Even a high-end, full-auto-rated rifle can (either .22 or .30cal) costs right at $1000 on the US civilian market even with the artificial scarcity and giant barrier to entry that is the NFA. Moreover, all the M4/M27/M240 cans already have an NSN as they're an off-the-shelf solution from Surefire, a company the DoD already has multiple long-duration, high-volume contracts with. This drives unit price down and there's zero R&D.

File: 12592262_10153512004241409_5905278258120207969_n.jpg (74KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 960x960px

>>33571011
>complaining about sight counts and gear accountability
>thinking this should legitimately be a concern for higher ups

Should we get rid of RCO's and PEQ's too? It's not like armories aren't secure. If you lose any gear it's due to your own incompetence, either at counting, or by being such an innefectual leader you let your custodians not follow the rules.

>>33571132
>ARs already dirty mechanism
When will this meme die? The dirtiest part of the AR is inside the chrome lined expansion chamber and piston head. The same area that gets dirty in a piston gun. Otherwise they don't get super malfunction inducing dirty with a silencer until you start breaking the 1k round count without cleaning or lubricating.

>>33567949

Ought to make recoil more manageable by adding weight as well

> tfw the USMC is full of pussy bitches

We 'Mericans civvies got us some oil filters or fuel filters for ya'll pistol people. They work great. Cost less. Only issue is ATF keep shootin our dogs.

>>33571163
>Muh I spent $600 dollarydoo on a platform that sucks and I refuse to admit it

I own both an AR and an AK, it's ridiculous how much dirtier the AR gets in critical component areas than the AK does, and I shoot filthy slavshit ammo out of the AK.

In the AK the gas pushes the piston back, that means dirty piston but it's okay because you can have loose tolerances in the piston area. In the AR the gas pushes back the bolt carrier directly... You should know what that equals.

File: 6,000.jpg (927KB, 2200x1928px) Image search: [Google]

927KB, 2200x1928px

>>33571208
who cares how dirty it gets as long as it works

File: Stoner GE.gif (144KB, 1072x268px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1072x268px

>>33571208
>only poorfags buy ARs meme
>AR gets so much dirtier in critical components
>In the AR the gas pushes back the bolt carrier directly
Ah, I see you're just shit posting and don't actually know what happens inside of a BCG when it cycles.

>>33571243
Sometimes it doesn't unless you have a fancy $1,500 rifle that sweats lubricants

>>33571243
So how long did that take anyway? My AR trigger pocket is still pretty fucking clean.

>>33571257
oh, i guess my $600 rifle didn't get the memo

>>33571272
6,000 rds, i use grease so the carbon sticks more

>>33571288
Any brands specific rounds? reloads?

>>33569362
>Are people who write those laws really that fucking stupid/ignorant?
You just answered your own question.

>>33569812
of course its bait you idiot

File: 20160628_1659011.jpg (791KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 1440x2560px

>>33571288
>oh, i guess my $600 rifle didn't get the memo
Mine either, I've literally never had a malfunction that wasn't caused by a worn out magazine spring, and I'm on my second barrel.

>i use grease so the carbon sticks more
Do you put grease in your FCG?

>>33571304
wolf 55gr only

>>33571338
yes, geissele said you can never use too much grease so i packed it in there.

i don't use as much grease anymore, i put a little more than enough but not a crazy amount.

>>33569812
This post summarizes why i don't listen to any advice on this goddamn board

File: 15kWolf.jpg (24KB, 600x450px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 600x450px

>>33571355
Huh, I was always told to never lube the FCG because it makes shit stick like in your photo. I guess it doesn't matter. Another point for the AR.

Dirty doesn't seem to matter to an AR.

>>33569070
Perhaps if suppressors become standard it may be time to look into a new GPMG design with an integrated suppressor?

As far as I know this doesn't exist right now, but I don't see any reason why it couldn't be developed.

>>33570804
>Really l mean silencers will have to be cleaned a whole shit ton more.
So silencers have to be cleaned every once in a while. Still should have been standard issue a hundred years ago.
>so why bother spending $100
You can make a silencer for $20, easily. Especially a short one.

File: e7f[1].png (99KB, 200x267px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 200x267px

>fighting COIN battles the routinely require long distance firefights.
>everyone is using low velocity ammo through a device that robs even more velocity, from a short barrel that produces even less velocity.

>>33571135
>fuck yeah those should be issued to every MOS that carries more than 50lbs on a regular basis.

All this means is that the packing list for missions gets that weight savings added to it in more gear, ammo, food, and water.

If issuing an exo skeleton to every infantryman reduces the felt weight of ammo, IBA, and ruck by 100 lbs you better fuckin believe 100 lbs of ammo, food, water, or extra gear is getting added to the packing list.

Don't suppressors get piss shit hot after like 30 rounds?

>>33571645
>suppressors only work with subsonic ammunition out of short barrels
>suppressors reduce velocity instead of increasing velocity and precision

Post less and learn more you goddamn CoD kiddie.

File: 1472698987686.png (437KB, 456x427px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 456x427px

So - why hasn't the idea of integrally suppressed assault rifles been researched? Are they too finicky and difficult to clean for grunts?

>>33571645
0/10 b8 kys my man.

>>33569756
That's what the marines have. Their new rifle is like that.

>>33569362
I mean, I've seen subsonic .45 get pretty quiet, and maybe .300 Memeout gets pretty quiet, but I don't know if they'd really be able to not track murders more easily like that.

I mean the most secure murder weapon is a rock you got from the forest anyways.

>>33569152
Why does Americans not have ear protection, like peltor that offers noise cancelling. Can still hear lower sounds like team shouting, but will cancel out sounds that will hurt your ear.

>>33569362
Norfag here, no regulations as far as I am aware. Seen them sold a lot

File: dirtyass.jpg (642KB, 1586x1116px) Image search: [Google]

642KB, 1586x1116px

>>33571288
that's very beautiful

>>33569150
If the Congress would give the Marine Corps the money they give the Army we would have plasma rifles and X-01 power armor.

>>33571255
It doesn't matter if you bought into the internal piston meme, the gases are directed inside thr BCG and everything inside is going to get dirty.

>>33569168
I worked for a suppressor manufacturer for a while. I was hired on (along with many others) because there was such high demand for suppressors that the company couldn't keep up. Sales were almost entirely to civilians and one alphabet soup agency. I doubt there are even 230,000 suppressors available "off the shelf" in every NATO country combined right now. Manufacturers are already having a hard time keeping up with current sales, so the DoD starting to buy them in bulk would be insane. It would take 6 months for the industry just to purchase new machinery, train new employees, and maximize efficiency for maximum production. Plus most companies offer some kind of warranty for repair and replacement work, so there's the whole service sector to consider as well.

>>33574304
and? are you worried about the bolt getting carbon locked in the carrier or something? that doesn't happen.

>>33568815
>>33568923
I realize you saw your mistake but jesus christ if we had guns that loud the bullet would be arbitrary

>>33567949
>Is this a good Idea? if no, why not?

It is tupi because to make them effective they have to issue subsonic ammunition and ideally bolt actions.

However from an AR a subsonic round is basically a 22LR

So that's that fucked.

So now you have something that will not be in any way silent from a gun that is noisy and an easily damaged thing that can start smoking or melt if you empty a few mags down it.

What is the point?

They would have been better off issuing a few .22LRs with silencers and scopes and subsonic ammunition and a few .45 or .303 subsonic rifles with a bolt action and silencer for people.

.223 is worse than .22LR subsonic and silenced.

>>33568815
>Suppressed AR-15 on the other hand is about 132-134 dB.

With what ammunition?

How the fuck is supersonic ammunition supressed anyway.

All this silencer fudd is because burgers have not been able to walk in and but the things or you would know they do fuck all without subsonic ammo and a gun that keeps the bolt shut

>>33568062
$700k for a Battalion is smedium potatoes.

>>33575659
The point was that it's a dirtier system, which it is.

>>33575720
Loudest part of the gunshot report is the expanding hot gases escaping from the muzzle. Taking them out dampens the gun a lot even if you're still hearing the supersonic crack of the bullet.

T. Hascans.

>>33575414
This is exactly why large scale military contracts like this tend to go to the same handful of manufacturers over and over again. I'd expect KAC or Surefire to pick this up.

The costs involved to spin up production , and then the later waste of personnel, machinery, warehousing, etc once the contract is fullfilled has destroyed many a small company that just happened to win a contract.

>>33575720
The supersonic crack still exists, but since you are giving the gas column behind the projectile space to expand into and cool before it leaves the suppressor you massively cut down initial report.

Ever notice how longer barreled rifles seem to be quieter than shorter barreled ones? Same reason, the uncorking pressure drops dramatically in longer barrels.

Taking M855 5.56 as an example from common barrel lenths, a 20" uncorks at ~5700psi compared to a 14.5" at ~7700psi, and a 10.5" at ~12,000 psi

From the old Gemtech tests, the expansion chamber provided by a suppressor (theirs of course in this test) immediately drops the pressure at the blast baffle to 2990 psi on a 10.5"or 1978 psi on a 14.5"

As a result of suppression I can shoot my 10.3" without ringing my ears, while it is still not hearing safe when considering long term damage is cumulative even when it doesn't hurt, it is absolutely below the pain threshold where I could shoot without earpro comfortably mag after mag if I wanted to.

>>33571417
carbon sticking in the fcg isn't too big of an issue, sand and larger particles are.

File: 300px-De_Lisle_Rifle.jpg (4KB, 300x119px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 300x119px

>>33575866
>while it is still not hearing safe

So it is still loud and does fuck all for you.

I don't get it. You still need ear protection.

Silenced guns are great don't get me wrong but they are closed bolt, subsonic. Do that. You can get it down to hearing the click of the sear and bolt sping/firing pin. Yes really.


But the whole silencer on subpersonic centerfires seems like bollix.

Pic related a De Lisle carbine.

Better to have a full silenced gun build than fuck around. IMO

>>33576045
A suppressor will still make the location of the shooter harder to pinpoint and also reduce the sound level of conflict, making communication easier. And also reduce flinching, because dumb grunts can't shoot for shit.

>>33576045
Not him, but I would still consider it worth the price even if earbuds are still a good idea. The US military already spends obscene amounts of money on complete and utter bullshit. If we can't cut down the spending than I (a taxpayer) would at least like to see some of that money going towards things like keeping hearing loss to a minimum even if this particular idea barely helps. It's better to sink money are slightly less loud service rifles than sinking money into warships that will probably do fuck all more than what a conventional design can already do.

>>33576045
I have a 300blk and with the gas turned off with subsonics it is as you say, extremely quiet.

Now while I could argue points about why I own suppressors for use on my supersonic rifles to someone that obviously doesn't, the point of the thread is why the military is wanting to use them.

Not every soldier or every marine is using earpro. Immediate benefit right there for a suppressor cutting back on the amount of immediate disorientation and long term hearing damage one may experience.

More importantly, being able to communicate to the rest of your fireteam during a fight increases your effectiveness by orders of magnitude.

>>33573045
Vss vintorez masterrace

>>33576045
read the article famalam. It's about communication. Suersonic suppressed is not hearing safe but it's far from deafening like unsuppressed.

File: India-British-WW1-Whistle-.jpg (76KB, 800x693px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 800x693px

>>33577358

>>33569005
They're also looking to adopt the M27 as standard issue meanwhile the army is looking into going back to 308 battle rifles.

>>33569379
EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>33569812
Marines don't use M16s anymore.

>>33579397
You don't understand how the military phases in equipment, huh?

Just because some Marines have newer equipment, it doesn't mean *poof* that all the old equipment is gone and that the new equipment filtered to everybody.

M16A4s are going to be issued in some form for decades.