USMC in Norway using suppressors

I guess horrified would be more correct. It was a lousy system in 1979.

grampajack said:

The current helmets are only IIIa though aren't they?

Click to expand...

I don't know what level they are- doesn't really matter since they are what troops need to wear. Helmets aren't just for protection from bullets, though. Pretty much any impact- and believe me, there are plenty of opportunities to get your dome thumped. I know because I've experienced most of them. Now- cue the punch drunk jokes.....

FL-NC said:

I don't know what level they are- doesn't really matter since they are what troops need to wear. Helmets aren't just for protection from bullets, though. Pretty much any impact- and believe me, there are plenty of opportunities to get your dome thumped. I know because I've experienced most of them. Now- cue the punch drunk jokes.....

Click to expand...

Well as far as getting thumped, like falling from a roof or helicopter or something, a modern plastic and foam helmet is where it's at. It would also protect from the trauma of getting shot with low speed projectiles.

grampajack said:

Well as far as getting thumped, like falling from a roof or helicopter or something, a modern plastic and foam helmet is where it's at. It would also protect from the trauma of getting shot with low speed projectiles.

Click to expand...

Disagree. Like I said- there are myriad ways to get your bell rung. Every time it happened to me, i was fortunate enough to be wearing a MICH or CVC. Anyway- suppressors, anyone?

For all of you naysayers out there that want to just throw crap at the idea of suppressors on battle rifles and MG's it seems the Marine Corp is already heading in that direction.

"What we've found so far is it revolutionizes the way we fight," Love told Military.com. "It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn't really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons. Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control and effectively direct those fires."

Click to expand...

I think this is the company the OP linked.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/11/22/corps-put-silencers-whole-infantry-battalion.html

Electronic communication is great in a vehicle or over long distances but within hearing distance it's just not necessary. Squad leader is probably the only one that needs to be radio linked with other units.

$700,000 per battalion is peanuts when you consider the cost of one cruise missile at 1.3 million. The Navy really likes cruise missiles. I'll take a battalion of Marines any day of the week. They used to wake me up everyday at 6AM doing PT.

This video might interest some of you.

Coop45 wrote:
Why do the east coast guys get all the good stuff?

Click to expand...

Maybe the quality and quantity of equipment is inversely proportional to a unit's distance from the Pentagon.

herr walther wrote:
Another "first" that isn't. During a deployment to Iraq (which I missed), my unit was issued surpressors for every weapon system. From M9 to M2. And that was back in 2005-06.

Click to expand...

None of these things are really "firsts". They are field tests of various studies that are carried out by the military on a continuing basis to gather information to verify different aspects of the study. What we don't know is what the Norway test cited in the OP was studying. Were they studying:

• The effectiveness of silencers in a Nordic environment?
• The durability of silencers in a Nordic environment?
  
• The effect on officers communicating with NCOs?
• The effect of NCOs communicating with the enlisted?
• The impact of the silencers on tactical mobility in a Nordic environment?
• The impact of silencers on the ability of the unit to coordinate with units from another country?

Bottom line, is that we don't know the answer to any of these questions from the article, but studies like these may go on for decades before a decision is made to move forward on something as sweeping as equipping large numbers of regular troops with silencers.

Or, it could have been "none of the above". For all we know from the article, the testing may have had nothing to do with silencers at all. The test could have been of battlefield communications equipment and to get a baseline measurement free from the interference of gunfire, the silencers were used.

hdwhit said:

The issues of cost, added logistical burden, and effect on weapon operation, should not be easily dismissed. Any one of those issues, on its own, is sufficient to ensure that suppressors would never be adopted on a widespread basis at all.

Click to expand...

The Army has been buying M4/M16's from Colt for about 20% more than they should have paid for about 30 years. That was evident when FN won the contract even tho the gov't has to pay Colt a 5% royalty for each rifle. Remington also built a bunch of rifles that were way less expensive than Colts. The Army should have gone to another design spec years ago instead of being jacked by Colt all those years.

Colt doesn't own any suppressor patents that I'm aware of so the field is wide open. When you have a contract for 100,000 suppressors the price drops substantially. It's similar to the P-320 contract that went for about $200 a unit.

Suppressors are new technology just like reflex sights. It took awhile for the military to put those on every rifle.

What "logistics burden" are you referring to?

What "effect on weapon operation" are you referring to?

CoalTrain49 said:

Suppressors are new technology just like reflex sights. It took awhile for the military to put those on every rifle.

Click to expand...

Umm...https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/10/history-of-suppressors/

They've ONLY been around over 100 years. I guess that's new if you're a rock.

Cannibul said:

They've ONLY been around over 100 years. I guess that's new if you're a rock.

Click to expand...

Well, airplanes have been around for a hundred years also.

The suppressors that we have now are built with new technology so I guess that makes them new technology. Ever hear of baffleless suppressors?

Probably not.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/01/21/shot-2016-oss-suppressor-live-fire-test/

hdwhit said:

• The effectiveness of silencers in a Nordic environment?

• The durability of silencers in a Nordic environment?

• The effect on officers communicating with NCOs?

• The effect of NCOs communicating with the enlisted?

• The impact of the silencers on tactical mobility in a Nordic environment?

• The impact of silencers on the ability of the unit to coordinate with units from another country?

Click to expand...

Likely all would be my guess. You would be surprised how well something will work in one environment but changes significantly once it gets cold. Up until the 1970's or so, many of the primary cold weather experienced units like 1&2 Brigade of 10th Mountain and the 86IBCT were still using the basic Army wide issued stuff that just wasn't cutting in cold weather. Cold weather units need different equipment to meet their mission objectives. If your unit needs half as much communication and signal equipment because the unit is using silencers, that can effect unit cohesion a great deal.

If ya want to get snarky them show me the 100 year old equivalent reflex sight. You stated that suppressors are new technology just like reflex sights.

Again, if you consider 100 year old technology "NEW" then you're a rock.

Cannibul said:

They've ONLY been around over 100 years. I guess that's new if you're a rock.

Click to expand...

Cannibul said:

If ya want to get snarky them show me the 100 year old equivalent reflex sight. You stated that suppressors are new technology just like reflex sights.

Again, if you consider 100 year old technology "NEW" then you're a rock.

Click to expand...

If you go back and look I never said suppressors are new. I said they were new technology, meaning the ones being built today are using....... new technology. I guess I wasn't clear if you thought I was referring to 100 year old suppressors being new tech..

And yes, reflex sights are new tech. Just like the new suppressors.

CoalTrain49 said:

The Army has been buying M4/M16's from Colt for about 20% more than they should have paid for about 30 years. That was evident when FN won the contract even tho the gov't has to pay Colt a 5% royalty for each rifle. Remington also built a bunch of rifles that were way less expensive than Colts. The Army should have gone to another design spec years ago instead of being jacked by Colt all those years.

Colt doesn't own any suppressor patents that I'm aware of so the field is wide open. When you have a contract for 100,000 suppressors the price drops substantially. It's similar to the P-320 contract that went for about $200 a unit.

Suppressors are new technology just like reflex sights. It took awhile for the military to put those on every rifle.

What "logistics burden" are you referring to?

What "effect on weapon operation" are you referring to?

Click to expand...

Maybe you forgot what you wrote, maybe you didn't write what you thought you wrote.

Maybe you have a totally different definition of "new technology". Or maybe you're splitting hairs. I read what you wrote. You didn't say today's suppressors use new(er) technology. You said they WERE NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Please define new so were're on the same ground. 99% of the suppressors out there use baffles, the same as the Maxim. Sure they're not made of steel, now but Hiram Maxim would recognize them for what they are.

The suppressor is over 100 years old and the reflex sight is 99 years old.

Cannibul said:

Maybe you forgot what you wrote, maybe you didn't write what you thought you wrote.

Maybe you have a totally different definition of "new technology". Or maybe you're splitting hairs. I read what you wrote. You didn't say today's suppressors use new(er) technology. You said they WERE NEW TECHNOLOGY.

Please define new so were're on the same ground. 99% of the suppressors out there use baffles, the same as the Maxim. Sure they're not made of steel, now but Hiram Maxim would recognize them for what they are.

The suppressor is over 100 years old and the reflex sight is 99 years old.

Click to expand...

Whatever. I think we covered it.

grampajack said:

To be accurate, they have to be very precise. And to be durable, they have to be made out of inconel and titanium, especially for rifle calibers. Hence the 1500-2500 dollar price tag for a good rifle can. Even if economy of scale were to take over, the cost would still be in excess of what they pay for an M4. There's also a reduced lifespan of parts when using a can on an M4, so that cost has to be factored in. Without a doubt, it would be a big financial burden to outfit every front line soldier with a suppressor.

Click to expand...

They don't need to be that durable for the military. The only reason civilian silencers are so overbuilt is because of the NFA process, and they need to last a long time to justify the cost/paperwork. If they were cash and carry items there would be a multitude of cheap cans on the market designed to last 1000 rounds and then be discarded. Uncle Sam doesn't have to do NFA paperwork.

IndianaBoy said:

They don't need to be that durable for the military. The only reason civilian silencers are so overbuilt is because of the NFA process, and they need to last a long time to justify the cost/paperwork. If they were cash and carry items there would be a multitude of cheap cans on the market designed to last 1000 rounds and then be discarded. Uncle Sam doesn't have to do NFA paperwork.

Click to expand...

Then manufacturer still does though.

Cannibul said:

Then manufacturer still does though.

Click to expand...

So FN acquires tax stamps for all those machine guns they sell to the military?


No.

Cannibul said:

Then manufacturer still does though.

Click to expand...

Take a second and read the NFA rules.

(2) Tax–exempt making of a firearm by a qualified manufacturer, or other than by a qualified manufacturer if the firearm is made on behalf of a Federal or State agency: ATF Form 1 and Form 2. Tax–exempt transfer and registration of the firearm on behalf of a Federal or State agency: ATF Form 5.

Click to expand...

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-any-exemptions-making-or-transfer-tax-provisions-nfa

The military is DOD. That qualifies as a Federal agency. The military can spec just about anything it wants from a mfg. including a cruise missile. They don't answer to the ATF and neither do the folks that build weapons for them.

When a manufacturer sells to a Federal agency there's still a ton of paperwork involved. There's no tax stamp and no waiting needed for the receiving agency, but the manufacturer still needs to be in compliance.

Cannibul said:

When a manufacturer sells to a Federal agency there's still a ton of paperwork involved. There's no tax stamp and no waiting needed for the receiving agency, but the manufacturer still needs to be in compliance.

Click to expand...

My point was there is no need for a silencer adopted by the military to be made of inconel or stellite. Materials like that really drive up cost. They are a bonus for guys like me who buy our own, have to abide by the NFA, and want a silencer to last for 10s of thousands of rounds if not hundreds of thousands.

That being said, titanium tubes really bring the weight down. So from that aspect some of the more exotic materials would still have a place.

Although from what I have heard about the difficulty in even getting rid of a bad magazine in the military, they would probably be difficult to get rid of and get new ones when they were worn out.

IndianaBoy said:

My point was there is no need for a silencer adopted by the military to be made of inconel or stellite. Materials like that really drive up cost. They are a bonus for guys like me who buy our own, have to abide by the NFA, and want a silencer to last for 10s of thousands of rounds if not hundreds of thousands.

That being said, titanium tubes really bring the weight down. So from that aspect some of the more exotic materials would still have a place.

Although from what I have heard about the difficulty in even getting rid of a bad magazine in the military, they would probably be difficult to get rid of and get new ones when they were worn out.

Click to expand...

Service life of equipment IS a major concern throughout the DOD. Even in the more specialized units. Contrary to what many think, there is no "magical room of everything" like on Archer (I love that show) where major end items are there for the taking as if weapons and such are just so many mop buckets and packs of paper towels. Such a thing doesn't exist anywhere near the level of the users, anyway- with rare exceptions.