USMC in Norway using suppressors

Status
Not open for further replies.
FL-NC said:
That COULD work, but I prefer to locate the enemy by means other than their gunfire, if possible. The modern battlefield is very fluid and chaotic to the point of being indescribable- even more so in urban terrain. Conventional forces USUALLY aren't the ones to initiate contact in this environment- as such, they are usually the ones experiencing the confusion at the outset of engagements, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

So, grunts are still the bait? Some things never change.
 
Coop45 said:
So, grunts are still the bait? Some things never change.
Click to expand...
That's one way of looking at it. In my experience, conducting a raid, ambush, or traditional type recon aren't the most dangerous missions- especially for a well trained force, whether a conventional infantry unit, SOF, etc. The MOST dangerous thing someone can do in a mideast war zone is. drive a vehicle. You can call it a "presence patrol", a "movement to contact" (which is an accurate description), combat recon patrol- or whatever. This essentially means you are driving around waiting to be blown up, ambushed, or both. But it is an efficient way to locate the enemy.
 
grampajack said:
Well I actually knew a game warden from Lower Saxony and they said you are effectively required to have one in their area. Europe is just like here where the laws vary by state, county, and city. I also know England is in a similar situation. It just depends on where you live. Some places suppressors are even outlawed and you're just more restricted on where you can hunt and during what hours.
Click to expand...

For the game warden, maybe - it is possible since 2013 to own a supressor if you are a professional hunter (but that has more to do with hearing protection of the hunter, not with noise pollution). For "hobby hunters", supressor still are forbidden to own (although that will change in some states soon), and Lower Saxony explicitly outlaws hunting with a supressor (§24 Niedersächsisches Jagdgesetz)!
Yes, the situation is like - if not more complicated - than in the US, with a lot of different countries and states (counties and cities however have next to no legal authority on that matter). However as i have said, there is no directive for the whole EU concerning noise pollution by guns, and I don't of know a single country that requires you to use a supressor outside of shooting ranges. If anything, shooting outside of shooting ranges is forbidden except for hunting. There also are countries where it is extremely common to use supressors (Finland for example), but that is not due to laws, but due to the easy acces (no special permit required like in most other EU-countries).
 
RoscoeBryant said:
For the game warden, maybe - it is possible since 2013 to own a supressor if you are a professional hunter (but that has more to do with hearing protection of the hunter, not with noise pollution). For "hobby hunters", supressor still are forbidden to own (although that will change in some states soon), and Lower Saxony explicitly outlaws hunting with a supressor (§24 Niedersächsisches Jagdgesetz)!
Yes, the situation is like - if not more complicated - than in the US, with a lot of different countries and states (counties and cities however have next to no legal authority on that matter). However as i have said, there is no directive for the whole EU concerning noise pollution by guns, and I don't of know a single country that requires you to use a supressor outside of shooting ranges. If anything, shooting outside of shooting ranges is forbidden except for hunting. There also are countries where it is extremely common to use supressors (Finland for example), but that is not due to laws, but due to the easy acces (no special permit required like in most other EU-countries).
Click to expand...

I'm telling you, lots of people hunt with suppressors in Europe, not just game wardens. There are entire magazines dedicated entirely 100% to suppressors for hunting use. They even sell integrally suppressed hunting rifles in their gun stores.

It is interesting you use the term "professional hunter." That's what this game warden said they were and I just assumed they meant game warden, but I do specifically remember now that they said professional hunter. I thought it was just the language barrier but maybe that's a literal translation of their actual title. Though if I remember right it was a more or less volunteer position where they agreed to kill so many deer and got to keep the meat in return. I think I remember them saying something about not getting paid and being required to exterminate a certain number of deer per season in order to keep their position. I'm probably getting things mixed up, but it was a very odd arrangement whatever it was.

But what I do remember specifically is them saying that all their hunting stands were near houses or protected wildlife areas and they couldn't shoot unsuppressed at all. I've heard similar things from English hunters. I will say this. I've done lots of hiking in western Europe during deer season and have seen many, many deer stands. They're literally everywhere, some of them in what would qualify as a neighborhood in rural America. And never once have I heard an usuppressed gunshot.

I don't know, I'm getting a headache. My only point is that their decision to use suppressors may have been more political as opposed to tactical. Maybe their training took place during the mating season of some rare moth and they had to agree to use suppressors to keep the local green party happy. I just wouldn't hold my breath thinking that this means that all infantry are now going to get suppressors or anything.

ETA: This was long before 2013 that I knew this person. Early 2000s maybe. Again, I don't know and don't have the will to find out. I've stopped trying to decode EU law. I have a friend in Europe who had horses, and her dad built a shelter for them one time. He complied with all the local building ordinances, got the permit and everything, the whole nine yards. Then years later this EU official from the EU environmental protection people comes knocking at her door to inform her that a frog was found living in the drainage ditch adjacent to the shelter and would she please move it four feet further. I kid you not, they had to get about ten people to pick this thing up and move it four feet. You wouldn't have even noticed that it had been moved it was such an arbitrary meaningless difference.
 
Last edited:
grampajack said:
I'm telling you, lots of people hunt with suppressors in Europe, not just game wardens. There are entire magazines dedicated entirely 100% to suppressors for hunting use. They even sell integrally suppressed hunting rifles in their gun stores.

It is interesting you use the term "professional hunter." That's what this game warden said they were and I just assumed they meant game warden, but I do specifically remember now that they said professional hunter. I thought it was just the language barrier but maybe that's a literal translation of their actual title. Though if I remember right it was a more or less volunteer position where they agreed to kill so many deer and got to keep the meat in return. I think I remember them saying something about not getting paid and being required to exterminate a certain number of deer per season in order to keep their position. I'm probably getting things mixed up, but it was a very odd arrangement whatever it was.

But what I do remember specifically is them saying that all their hunting stands were near houses or protected wildlife areas and they couldn't shoot unsuppressed at all. I've heard similar things from English hunters. I will say this. I've done lots of hiking in western Europe during deer season and have seen many, many deer stands. They're literally everywhere, some of them in what would qualify as a neighborhood in rural America. And never once have I heard an usuppressed gunshot.

I don't know, I'm getting a headache. My only point is that their decision to use suppressors may have been more political as opposed to tactical. Maybe their training took place during the mating season of some rare moth and they had to agree to use suppressors to keep the local green party happy. I just wouldn't hold my breath thinking that this means that all infantry are now going to get suppressors or anything.

ETA: This was long before 2013 that I knew this person. Early 2000s maybe. Again, I don't know and don't have the will to find out. I've stopped trying to decode EU law. I have a friend in Europe who had horses, and her dad built a shelter for them one time. He complied with all the local building ordinances, got the permit and everything, the whole nine yards. Then years later this EU official from the EU environmental protection people comes knocking at her door to inform her that a frog was found living in the drainage ditch adjacent to the shelter and would she please move it four feet further. I kid you not, they had to get about ten people to pick this thing up and move it four feet. You wouldn't have even noticed that it had been moved it was such an arbitrary meaningless difference.
Click to expand...

I know that a lot of people do - it just has nothing to do with EU or even national laws, but with their own preference. I am certain you are getting a few things mixed up, because in Lower Saxony hunting with a supressed rifle is explicitly forbidden by law and has been since the existing of their hunting law. There are some exceptions for professional hunters, but this has nothing to do with noise pollution, as there are hundreds of thousands of "hobby hunters" who are not allowed to use them. Here in Austria, deer stands next to houses and homes are very common, and no one would ever use a supressor.

The USMC using supressors in Norway might be for political reasons (although i doubt that for the abvious reason that the Norwegian military itself does not use supressors), but certainly not due to EU-regulations on noise pollution. However you might be right about things like mating season or something, I have not thought about such circumstances!
 
RoscoeBryant said:
I know that a lot of people do - it just has nothing to do with EU or even national laws, but with their own preference. I am certain you are getting a few things mixed up, because in Lower Saxony hunting with a supressed rifle is explicitly forbidden by law and has been since the existing of their hunting law. There are some exceptions for professional hunters, but this has nothing to do with noise pollution, as there are hundreds of thousands of "hobby hunters" who are not allowed to use them. Here in Austria, deer stands next to houses and homes are very common, and no one would ever use a supressor.

The USMC using supressors in Norway might be for political reasons (although i doubt that for the abvious reason that the Norwegian military itself does not use supressors), but certainly not due to EU-regulations on noise pollution. However you might be right about things like mating season or something, I have not thought about such circumstances!
Click to expand...

I recall they were from Lower Saxony, but it was a long time ago. They were a friend of a friend. I know they were from Germany at least! I'm not really sure what a professional hunter is exactly, but the entire family (mom, dad, and two sons I think) were "professional hunters." They gave me the impression that you had to be in order to hunt in that area. Most of our conversation pertained to the suppressors though. They were not common in the US at that time, so I was really surprised that they owned them. When they found out I had hunted in the US and was interested in guns they were eager to tell me about their equipment and what they hunted (these funny looking, tiny ass deer:)).

Just because the Norwegian military doesn't use suppressors wouldn't necessarily preclude them from making us use them. I know the greenies start coming out of the woodwork to try to prevent the US military from training. Even here in the US they have to spend millions of dollars and do all kinds of stupid crap on their own bases. Fort Benning has these endangered owls that wreak havoc.

Then again, it might have been a tactical experiment to see if Marines with suppressors had an advantage over a foreign force without them. It will be interesting to find out more about it and see what the results were. If the military does adopt widespread suppressor use it could lower the price of whatever cans they adopt. Then again, it could make them look more "tactical" and less sporting if they become associated with the military. Or maybe they'll do a study on hearing loss that will finally convince the liberals that they're a good thing.

ETA: Doesn't unsuppressed rifle fire at the crack of dawn drive people nuts during hunting season?
 
grampajack said:
I recall they were from Lower Saxony, but it was a long time ago. They were a friend of a friend. I know they were from Germany at least! I'm not really sure what a professional hunter is exactly, but the entire family (mom, dad, and two sons I think) were "professional hunters." They gave me the impression that you had to be in order to hunt in that area. Most of our conversation pertained to the suppressors though. They were not common in the US at that time, so I was really surprised that they owned them. When they found out I had hunted in the US and was interested in guns they were eager to tell me about their equipment and what they hunted (these funny looking, tiny ass deer:)).

Just because the Norwegian military doesn't use suppressors wouldn't necessarily preclude them from making us use them. I know the greenies start coming out of the woodwork to try to prevent the US military from training. Even here in the US they have to spend millions of dollars and do all kinds of stupid crap on their own bases. Fort Benning has these endangered owls that wreak havoc.

Then again, it might have been a tactical experiment to see if Marines with suppressors had an advantage over a foreign force without them. It will be interesting to find out more about it and see what the results were. If the military does adopt widespread suppressor use it could lower the price of whatever cans they adopt. Then again, it could make them look more "tactical" and less sporting if they become associated with the military. Or maybe they'll do a study on hearing loss that will finally convince the liberals that they're a good thing.

ETA: Doesn't unsuppressed rifle fire at the crack of dawn drive people nuts during hunting season?
Click to expand...

Hearing protection is a very important point, mainly for the own forces. But we will see, maybe there will be some more information be revealed!

Well, hunting in Austria is a lot different than it is in the US as I have got to know it. First of all, there is no hunting season, you can hunt all year round (however not all animals are legal). Then not everyone is allowed to hunt - you have to get a hunting licence, and you have to get permission of the land owner (or whoever owns the right to hunt there - which is not necessarily the land owner), who will not allow too many animals a year to be shot. Therefore, there are not really any "sport-hunters", but usually people who are hunting for the meat. If you hunt for meat, you take one, maybe two shots a day and then you are done (except if you are a very big eater I guess :D ), so there is no real problem with annoying your neighbours.
 
grampajack said:
You have to remember that suppressors haven't always been very good. They have improved drastically in the last few decades. Used to be they weren't very durable and they did bad things to accuracy. They're also expensive. You have to realize that a good suppressor costs as much or more than an M4. Sometimes it just comes down to money.
Click to expand...

So does a good reflex sight. Ever check out the cost of the Aimpoint M4 that the military uses?

I'm on disability for service connected hearing loss. I worked in a job for 4 years that was rated as having the highest noise hazard in the military. We didn't have adequate hearing protection. What they pay me for that in a year would buy several good suppressors.

I reject the idea that the military can't afford to buy the equipment to suppress muzzle blast noise. Whats a troop supposed to do, wear earplugs on patrol. Suppressors also have been proven to be an advantage when engaged. If they weren't SOCOM wouldn't be using them.

So it does come down to money. Pay me now or pay me more later.
 
Last edited:
RoscoeBryant said:
Hearing protection is a very important point, mainly for the own forces. But we will see, maybe there will be some more information be revealed!

Well, hunting in Austria is a lot different than it is in the US as I have got to know it. First of all, there is no hunting season, you can hunt all year round (however not all animals are legal). Then not everyone is allowed to hunt - you have to get a hunting licence, and you have to get permission of the land owner (or whoever owns the right to hunt there - which is not necessarily the land owner), who will not allow too many animals a year to be shot. Therefore, there are not really any "sport-hunters", but usually people who are hunting for the meat. If you hunt for meat, you take one, maybe two shots a day and then you are done (except if you are a very big eater I guess :D ), so there is no real problem with annoying your neighbours.
Click to expand...

Considering the size of those deer I imagine I would have to shoot a lot of them!:D All I can say is Austrians must be more tolerant than Americans. If someone fired a high power rifle next to my house at the crack of dawn I would be out there with a chainsaw turning their stand into cordwood, with them still up there in it!:rofl:
 
CoalTrain49 said:
So does a good reflex sight. Ever check out the cost of the Aimpoint M4 that the military uses?

I'm on disability for service connected hearing loss. I worked in a job for 4 years that was rated as having the highest noise hazard in the military. We didn't have adequate hearing protection. What they pay me for that in a year would buy several good suppressors.

I reject the idea that the military can't afford to buy the equipment to suppress muzzle blast noise. Whats a troop supposed to do, wear earplugs on patrol. Suppressors also have been proven to be an advantage when engaged. If they weren't SOCOM wouldn't be using them.

So it does come down to money. Pay me now or pay me more later.
Click to expand...
Yes, troops sometimes wear earplugs or muff-type hearing protection. We did. Also, monies from the VA are totally separate from monies to test, purchase, and field new equipment.
 
FL-NC said:
Yes, troops sometimes wear earplugs or muff-type hearing protection. We did. Also, monies from the VA are totally separate from monies to test, purchase, and field new equipment.
Click to expand...

I'm kind of amazed that all deployed front line units aren't issued electronic hearing protection with communications slaved into it. I know it's expensive, but it just seems like it would make them much more effective when it hits the fan.
 
FL-NC said:
Yes, troops sometimes wear earplugs or muff-type hearing protection. We did. Also, monies from the VA are totally separate from monies to test, purchase, and field new equipment.
Click to expand...

My point is the money spent up front to mitigate some injuries and disabilities to military personnel would have a far reaching effect on the money the VA has to spend to compensate veterans. It all comes out of the same pot. Tax dollars.

I know the two budgets are not related. We fight a war and the VA gets to pay for the damages.
 
grampajack said:
I'm kind of amazed that all deployed front line units aren't issued electronic hearing protection with communications slaved into it. I know it's expensive, but it just seems like it would make them much more effective when it hits the fan.
Click to expand...

Ever try to hunt with muffs or earplugs? Works pretty well at the range but in the field it's not the best solution. It diminishes your ability to hear substantially. I worked on the flight line and we had muffs. The guy that had to communicate with ATC couldn't wear them because they weren't capable of electronic communication. All of that has changed and it gets better all the time but that doesn't mean we have to accept the status quo.
 
Last edited:
grampajack said:
I'm kind of amazed that all deployed front line units aren't issued electronic hearing protection with communications slaved into it. I know it's expensive, but it just seems like it would make them much more effective when it hits the fan.
Click to expand...
They are definitely a key piece of mission enhancing equipment. Its nice to be able to hear communications clearly, along with regular sounds being amplified, but cut down to safe levels when firing a weapon- even weapons like mini guns, anti tank weapons, etc., and being protected from the effects of charges and grenades. We used them religiously when doing mounted vehicle operations or during raids. For dismounted recon type missions we just used our suppressors but kept plugs inside our boony hats, in our pockets, etc. Lately guys are getting custom made plugs that are basically hearing aids with a noise cutoff like peltor electronic muffs.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
I reject the idea that the military can't afford to buy the equipment to suppress muzzle blast noise. Whats a troop supposed to do, wear earplugs on patrol. Suppressors also have been proven to be an advantage when engaged. If they weren't SOCOM wouldn't be using them.
Click to expand...

Having been in the military, you should know the maxim. If it makes sense, then it won't happen. There are plenty of things the military does that is counter intuitive.

grampajack said:
I'm kind of amazed that all deployed front line units aren't issued electronic hearing protection with communications slaved into it. I know it's expensive, but it just seems like it would make them much more effective when it hits the fan.
Click to expand...

That has started. If I knew for certain that I could have shelled out personal money for electronic hearing protection that amplified regular noise, and protected my hearing from gunfire AND fit under my helmet, I would have bought it before going overseas. Also most of our tactical vehicles have headset intercoms. They can be programmed to talk just inside the truck or connected to a radio to contact distant units. They are also pretty decent protectors for hearing. But the crux is, they are in a truck. They don't do much good for patrols where you are walking around. That being said I was very happy to have them. A .50 going off above your head inside a truck with hardly any windows would have made my hearing much worse if they didn't have those headsets.
 
grampajack said:
I'm kind of amazed that all deployed front line units aren't issued electronic hearing protection with communications slaved into it. I know it's expensive, but it just seems like it would make them much more effective when it hits the fan.
Click to expand...

1. It has to fit under/in the helmet, has to be Marine proof, and then there's the issue of batteries.
 
Cannibul said:
1. It has to fit under/in the helmet, has to be Marine proof, and then there's the issue of batteries.
Click to expand...
The peltor com tac models are all that. Mine survived 2 hard tours, numerous train ups, I don't know how many missions. 1 submersion, and a RPGs blast that nearly ended me. They still work. Aa or aaa batteries depending on model. Fit under mich, ops core. And Cvc helmets.
 
Cannibul said:
1. It has to fit under/in the helmet, has to be Marine proof, and then there's the issue of batteries.
Click to expand...

I had an idea once while watching something about helmet design on the history channel. Why not have a helmet with the ear muphs attached to it like you see special forces wearing, but instead of the helmet itself being kevlar, why not use a lightweight skateboarding type helmet with a soft kevlar cover that would come down and cover the ears as well? The helmet itself would provide blunt force protection, as would the ear muphs to a certain extent, and the soft cover would be lightweight and provide level IIIA protection.
 
grampajack said:
I had an idea once while watching something about helmet design on the history channel. Why not have a helmet with the ear muphs attached to it like you see special forces wearing, but instead of the helmet itself being kevlar, why not use a lightweight skateboarding type helmet with a soft kevlar cover that would come down and cover the ears as well? The helmet itself would provide blunt force protection, as would the ear muphs to a certain extent, and the soft cover would be lightweight and provide level IIIA protection.
Click to expand...
Would not be sufficient protection.
 
CapnMac said:
It's a Marine Rifle battalion, the only issued pistols are in the Weapons Platoons, and then only if they are embarking TOW or Dragon. Mortars get M4s, and the MG squads usually get M16s.
Click to expand...

I can't believe the Marines still field the Dragon. I was an 0351 back in the dark ages and hated that thing.
 
Cannibul said:
I can't believe the Marines still field the Dragon. I was an 0351 back in the dark ages and hated that thing.
Click to expand...

You can't believe or, you are horrified to find it's true ? Given the "frugality" with which the Department of the Navy treats funding of the Marine Corps, the only thing one can't believe is that the latest announced service pistol change doesn't involved the Marine Corps trading in their current issue Colt SAAs for that new-fangled 1911 pistol! One has heard stories, almost certainly apocryphal but only just, that a small number of Marines were issued some of the stored Civil War era Rogers & Spencer cap & ball revolvers in the Philippines when the 38 LC was found wanting against their Moro adversaries...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

H
  • Locked
Army learns which end is dangerous?
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Al Thompson
A
D
  • Locked
Marine Corps Sets Sights On More Precise Shooting
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
STW
S
C
  • Locked
USMC: IAR vs SAW
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
PandaBearBG
P
W
  • Locked
Army Stops Many Soldiers From Quitting-Extends Enlistments to Curtail Troop Shortages
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
striker3
S
S
  • Locked
There WERE troops who refused to confiscate guns during Katrina
Replies
2
Views
895
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top