[madmike]

To the best of my knowledge, the purpose of a flash suppressor is to divert muzzle flash away from the shooter's sight plane, rather than to "hide" the flash.

Can someone confirm this for me?

Can you quote a source, official military preferred?

thanks

[Steve Smith]

Use one for self and you will see the truth.


It hides flash from the shooter's point of view, but does a good job ofhiding it from everyone.

[madmike]

Having been on hundreds of operations at night, they certainly do NOT hide muzzle flash in any fashion. That was one of the prime ways I located the enemy while performing OPFOR missions.

But I'm asking for official data to confirm/deny the INTENT of flash suppressors.

[280PLUS]

is it possible that todays"muzzle brakes" are flash suppressors in disguise?

i mean, the AWB does seem to be mostly about definitions,,,

[Steve Smith]

Odd that the suppressors that I have used did an adequate job, but yours did not. Mine were on full length ARs and M1As, not carbines. I imagine that a carbine's flash is hard to hide with anything.

[madmike]

Mine were on standard milspec M-16s, M-60s and .50s. While they do reduce the length of the flash, the bloom around the slots is no dimmer. Long, perforated suppressors provide some small measure of reduction, but the military doesn't use those.

And the old cone-shaped suppressors on the Garand and Carbine did nothing as far as reducing flash...though they did keep it out of the sight picture...

Which is what I'm trying to confirm or deny as the official purpose.

Not opinions as to how good they are, which I can get six of from any five random shooters...no offense, Steve.

[gun-fucious]

auf deutch:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/Bremse/Mundbremse.html

[madmike]

Thanks, Gun Fucious...er...is your German better than mine? I can infer some.

And any other links that might help?

[Telperion]

madmike,

Thinking of straightening out this bozo (http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2003/102003/10262003/1144996)?

[madmike]

No. Arguing with idiots just wastes your time and annoys the idiots.

And he doesn't want to hear it.

And it would only matter on shootings at night where the victim might see the flash and take cover it if missed (assuming it "hid" the flash).

So not worth my time.

[madmike]

Oh, what the hey. He might be one of the 1% who actually thinks. Though considering the bs and outright lies in the commentary, I doubt it.

http://www.freelancestar.com/News/FLS/2003/102003/10262003/1144996
"Flash suppressors are used in combat so the enemy can't pinpoint a night shooter's location by the flame from the muzzle."

Obviously, you have never been in combat, or even on a rifle range.

They do no such thing. For such purposes, which are rare, a full "Suppressor," more commonly and inaccurately called a "silencer" is used to contain the muzzle gases. A "flash suppressor" diverts flash away from the shooter's sight plane for night fire. That is all.

"Technically, flash suppressors are illegal, but the public can buy "flash hiders" that do just about the same thing."

I have no idea where you heard this. No semiautomatic weapon manufactured after June 1 1994 may have such. "Muzzle brakes" that divert gas to keep the muzzle down for precision shooting are quite common, and have been common for 50 years. The two look similar to the non-professional. But in neither case is one "hidden from the enemy."

Nor, were such the case, would it matter. If someone were to start shooting, I'd take cover. Unless one has a weapon, support, and intends to RETURN fire, what good would it do?

"And why do we general public types need 50-caliber sniper rifles that can kill a man at a range of up to a mile with a round that would blow a hole in a tank at long range?"

No tank in the world is vulnerable to a .50. No standard automobile is proof against even a .22. This type of straw man argument is not helpful. Please get your facts straight.

Additionally, why does anyone NEED a car that does 3X the legal speed limit? I wasn't aware we had to justify our actions before the fact in America. In fact, that's one of the reasons I came here.

"When the FBI and the police were using helicopters in an attempt to track down the Beltway snipers a year ago, they feared those killers were using a flash suppressor to avoid detection."

Please name your source on this information.

"But I haven't seen or heard much questioning why the tools of terror used by the snipers are still readily available."

Yes. We must ban all Chevy Impalas at once. And computers in the hands of uninformed journalists. In fact, I favor a mandatory 5-day wait on publication while the government checks your facts for accuracy.

As at this point, it's obvious you've never held a gun in your life, and get your data from cheap movies, let me reassure you (actually, it won't reassure you, but hey) that my 6 year old daughter can shoot that well with a .22. That wasn't "sniping," that was, "cowardly potshooting." 100 yards? Against a still target? Any competent marksman expects a 4" or smaller group at that range. Calling them "snipers" dignifies them with competence, and insults the professionals in the US military and our police departments.

In fact, ANY DEER RIFLE would have caused more damage, at greater range. A
.30-06 packs more than twice the ballistic energy of a .223 (2800 foot-pounds vs 1300 foot-pounds--that latter on par with a large pistol).

If you wish to be taken seriously, rather than as a noisome fool, please make a few phone calls to knowledgeable people before starting a diatribe.

Oh, by the way: me: 18 years US Army, USAF, armorer, expert marksman, unit
instructor, unit competitor (state ranked pistol, rifle), professional writer and immigrant.

And I see nowhere in the 2nd Amendment a mention of hunting. Nowhere in the
Constitution, in fact. Though I would suspect a read might suggest it belongs in the 9th Amendment.

You might also consider reading Title 10, USC, Chapter 311. If you actually care enough to get a few facts before you write back.

[rezman]

Madmike,

Outstanding response.

I wish I had your ability with the written form of our language.