Can it be done? Design an internally suppressed military rifle.

Status
Not open for further replies.

NoirFan

Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2006
Messages
671
Most innovations in military arms these days are geared toward making weapons lighter, shorter, more modular, able to fit a variety of body types etc. In short, most developments these days are about making weapons more ergonomic for the user. So it seems to me a big step forward would be to reduce the firing report without losing ballistic effectiveness, or screwing an unwieldy, disposable suppresser to the front of the barrel.

The parameters for this exercise are:

  • The rifle must be a mag-fed semiauto at least as reliable, accurate and modular as a standard issue M4, and be of comparable weight and size.
  • Rifle must chamber standard loadings of NATO calibers: 5.56 x 45 or 7.62 x 51. No reduced velocity loads.
  • The suppression system must have a service life comparable to the maintenance cycle of the rifle, let's just say 5000 rounds.
  • The system should not require the user to perform any extra tasks (filling anything with water, increased cleaning, etc)
  • The system must be at least as effective at reducing noise as a high-quality standard screw-on suppressor.

Can it be done?
 
I would think the quick and dirty answer would be yes, as long as you have enough time and money to make it happen.

I can think of a few good uses for a gun like this but I guess I'd have to ask why? Is there a special purpose you have for the weapon, do current options not meet expected standards, is this just a project to see if it can be done?
 
Daniel Defense Integrally Suppressed Rifle

I see no reason why the same couldn't be made in 5.56, but...

The system should not require the user to perform any extra tasks (filling anything with water, increased cleaning, etc)

...compared to its non-suppressed counterpart, a suppressed firearm will always get dirtier, quicker. I don't think there's anything that can be done in that regard. Some designs re-route the curd to other areas, but it must be dealt with one way or the other.
 
Actually I think the cleaning requirements and easier storage are reasons a removable suppressor would be better.

I know there are metallurgies you can use to make cleaning easier, but the way suppressors work I would think they would still be difficult.

The other aspect, the ammo, is more a case of how the suppressor works. If the ammo goes over the speed of sound (roughly 1100 FPS) then it will make a sonic boom as it flies through the air, something the supressor cannot fix. Low velocity ammo for suppressors is designed to go under the speed of sound so it will not make that crack. So unless you use low velocity ammo, you won't get the same sound quality.

I'm not saying that its a bad idea to make an integrated system, but it will have drawbacks.
 
no because its stupid.

Integrally suppressed means having a ported barrel with the suppressor over it. The ported barrel would reduce velocity to subsonic levels. Why the hell would you do that to a 5.56mm or 7.62mm nato rifle? In order to maintain the ballistics of rifle rounds, you need an external suppressor. Case closed.

That daniel defense rifle posted above is in 300 blackout and is intended to be used with subsonic low powered ammo anyway.
 
Red Jacket - Shooting the Integrally Suppressed AK - Yo…
m.youtube.com/watch?v=5asgorw9l_0
 
Integrally suppressed means having a ported barrel with the suppressor over it. The ported barrel would reduce velocity to subsonic levels. Why the hell would you do that to a 5.56mm or 7.62mm nato rifle? In order to maintain the ballistics of rifle rounds, you need an external suppressor. Case closed.

Just because the barrel is ported doesn't mean that it's going to bleed off enough pressure to drop the bullet's velocity by 2,000 FPS. It would have to be specifically engineered to do so. The MP5SD was specifically designed to achieve this using a 115gr 9mm bullet, but that does not translate to a 5.56 bullet traveling close to 3 times as fast.
That daniel defense rifle posted above is in 300 blackout and is intended to be used with subsonic low powered ammo anyway.

I'm very much aware of the chambering of the ISR, which is why I pointed out that there is no reason why the same firearm could not be made in another AR chambering, such as 5.56mm. Really, there is no reason why they couldn't, especially considering the fact that the suppressor already has a stainless steel construction.

It should be noted that the ISR is not a "subsonic only" proposition. Supersonic loads fired out of this gun remain at supersonic velocities.

Personally, I think suppressed rifles lobbing supersonic projectiles are still quite loud, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it a useless and foolish undertaking.
 
I can think of a few good uses for a gun like this but I guess I'd have to ask why? Is there a special purpose you have for the weapon, do current options not meet expected standards, is this just a project to see if it can be done?

I remember reading articles about the most common injuries for troops coming back from the current wars. Lower back and knee injuries were the highest on the list but hearing damage was not far behind. An internally suppressed rifle could reduce ear injury and provide greater situational awareness for soldiers by preserving hearing in a firefight.

^ OK that was my flimsy rationale above. The real reason is I enjoy shooting but don't like doubling up with plugs and muffs to protect my hearing. Of course building something like this might be cost ineffective but it's fun to speculate about how it could be done.
 
Absolutely so...provided that cleaning is made simple enough to be done in a travelling vehicle as modern troops are in vehicles as much as they are out.
 
The question is: why do this over a muzzle attached suppressor?

If the goal is to maintain velocity, it would add several inches to the barrel length. Or, maintaining barrel length, it would reduce velocity.

If the goal is sound suppression, it would be the same as if the suppressor were detachable, but with the drawbacks of harder cleaning and longer storage space required.

I'm also pretty sure ATF would be all over it as a NFA item (correct me if I'm wrong) so it would be a bad way to get around the tax stamp and/or felony charge.

So the question is: what would this system offer that a detachable system doesn't?
 
The difficulty with your criteria lies in the equal weight/equal reliabity parts. A suppressor converts sound energy to heat and heat is a major killer of rifles. If you suppress an M4, you can't run it at 12-15rpm sustained fire because you are heating up much quicker.

You are also talking about adding ~20oz of steel to the end of the barrel (because titanium isn't going to get it done for full-auto). Meaning you've got to cut 20oz from the barrel profile and handguard to compete on weight without jeopardizing any other criteria.

Personally, I think those two factors explain why rifle suppressors are often detachable instead of integral.
 
The parameters for this exercise are:

The rifle must be a mag-fed semiauto at least as reliable, accurate and modular as a standard issue M4, and be of comparable weight and size.
Rifle must chamber standard loadings of NATO calibers: 5.56 x 45 or 7.62 x 51. No reduced velocity loads.
The suppression system must have a service life comparable to the maintenance cycle of the rifle, let's just say 5000 rounds.
The system should not require the user to perform any extra tasks (filling anything with water, increased cleaning, etc)
The system must be at least as effective at reducing noise as a high-quality standard screw-on suppressor.

Can it be done?

If you can live without #2, then the Russian VSS Vintorez (in 9x39mm) fulfills those requirements.
 
They do make mini-suppressors. They aren't so much designed to "silence" as they are simply meant to check the nastiness of the muzzle blast from short-barrel applications like the M4 or Mk18. Still not hearing safe though.

I get the impression a lot of people think of suppressors as "all or nothing" to some degree. If hearing protection is the name of the game, really any reduction helps though the more the better. Whether it is a mini-can just meant to take a good bit of the edge off or some kind of converted 55-gallon drum dreamt up by Bubba, there is a whole spectrum of reduction, all of it beneficial. You just have to decide how much you really need and what you are willing to trade for it.
 
It was done in W.W. II. Wasn't a semi though. Bolt action Lee-Enfield based rifle(De lisle carbine) and handguns(Welrod). Not a general issue weapon though. Such a thing would be a huge waste of resources.
 
Dedicated suppressors work very well on .22LR rimfire rifles. Ruger themselves though they now tend to deny it even built one in the late VN war.

My favorite is from Paladin Armory and it is made from a butler creek bull barrel (.920) there is only three or four inches of rifling before the suppressor insert begins. Maintenance consist of unscrewing the insert from the front, using a coin slot and then hosing off the insert before re inserting it.

The action noise is far louder than the muzzle blast. If one blocks the action one can hear the firing pin strike.

He did pretty much the same sort of dedicated suppressor with the Norinco ATD Browning semi auto clone and with a little Marlin five shot bolt action.

The problem with 5.56 or 7.62 rifles is the need to incorporate the gas system somehow in the suppressor. One would still have the breech flash from ARs and other Ljungman type gas systems no mater what suppressor was used at night.

As a former light weapons Infantryman I would MUCH prefer that if I had to use a suppressor it be a simple muzzle device. While it adds length to the rifle (although those Swedish models that are used on G3 HK 91s that have an expansion chamber that rides around the barrel don't add so much) It means I have less to worry about possibly screwing up my rifle.....and my rifle is my brother....etc. Think about a baffle strike on a dedicated rifle verses one in a screw on.

-kBob
 
Might not be a huge waste of resources. Virtually every veteran I know has hearing damage to some degree - some of us worse than others due to artillery, armor, or working with explosives. The problem is that you can't protect your hearing AND be listening for someone who may shout "Run for your lives!".

Still almost anyone I've known who was in combat arms or something that closely supported them has a persistent ringing in the ears and loss of hearing. Even w/o the more exotic stuff, a couple unprotected bursts from a M4, 240B, or M2 can do a lot of permanent damage. No matter how careful you are, I think we've all heard some FA fire, even just in training. In combat it's inevitable.

How much does it cost to send us all to doctors for the next 40 years and buy us hearing aids? If the cost of some kind of durable suppressor is less than that, it could be a good investment in the long term.
 
I don't know goon, how much does it cost for the same VA hospital that announced I had severe hearing loss 30 years ago to find I have miraculously recovered to normal hearing and resend my service connected VA card? 200 yards away at a major civilian hospital and medical research center I was diagnosed later as severe hearing loss likely due to exposure to explosions and artillery since, on my own dime of course.

Doesn't seemed to have cost the tax payers much to toss me out on my butt at all.

Sorry if I sound a bit bitter.

-kBob
 
The VA may suck (what DMV doesn't, though?), but I do still see articles fairly frequently discussing the great costs of hearing loss in the service, both human and monetary, and how so very much of it is avoidable. If your service guns are suppressed, that means you can train suppressed, and that means you aren't deafening soldiers practically by default. I know there's earpro standards and things, but I hear from service folks here and maintenance guys at work just how frequently it is forgotten or fails during use to realize that's not a great solution. It'd be great if the only threat to your hearing came from the bad guys' ammo, since then it'd be a worry far down the list.

Seems like safety glasses were a worthy addition of late (it can't be just because they look so cool :p that they feature prominently in footage/etc.), so why not suppressors coupled with good, digital earpro (heck, just build earmuffs into the helmets :D) going forward? This time we will hear when the bad guys stop to change mags*

As far as internally suppressed service guns, there'd be two schools of thought for different missions. Small, light, and supersonic projectiles with cans that mostly function as muzzle brake/flash hider combos, but also eliminate most of the overpressure concussing the shooter that we normally associate with such high pressure rounds. The can would function to spread out the pressure spike operating the gun, acting as a sort of muzzle booster, to improve function in short barrels. The other would be the heavy/slow subsonic crowd, more or less functioning like the old suppressed SMGs, but in a much more powerful and typically semi-auto role with greater reach (and power, again)

I think if it could be done cheaply enough, integrally suppressed PDWs or SMGs would finally eclipse pistols, simply because the same blast reductions can't be offered by pistols without making them nearly as bulky as SMGs.

My "ideal" offerings would be thus;
-Heavy/slow format with a 30cal or greater bullet: Based on the VZ58 short stroke, open-top layout, with a suppressor/shroud setup like the Vintorez (basically combine them) that encloses as much pressurized volume as possible for better sound reduction. Probably figure out a way to cushion the bolt return to drop decibels further.
-Fast/light format with a 22cal bullet: Based on the Steyr Aug short stroke (for bullpup lovers) or AR18/G36/SCAR tappet short stroke (for bullpup-haters), but with a metallic receiver conducive to American service use. Possibly contract with CZ to have them make a CZ805 BREN-style aluminum receiver/shell to contain everything.
-PDW with a 22cal or smaller bullet: My own (obviously perfected :p) MP57 concept, which is a short stroke tappet operated falling block action, which allows for all but the rear 2" of the weapon to be barrel & integral slimline suppressor shroud. Exterior is identical to the MP7/MAC-style machine pistol, but feeds from 50-round PS90 magazines on top of the weapon that slide in beneath a sight rail from either side. Shells eject out the bottom of the very rear of the receiver.

TCB

*dig at the bogus "Garand ping" myths
 
Last edited:
Integrally suppressed means having a ported barrel with the suppressor over it.

No it doesn't, just means the can can't be removed or "as belonging to the whole". One can port barrels with or without suppressors and once they are machined they are integral but you can make a suppressor without them.

To the op's question, sure you could make what you are asking for. 5000 rounds isn't much life though.

You could take a screw on suppressor and weld it to say a 14" barrel and that would count as an intergrally suppressed rifle. If you could remove it from the barrel you would have a 2 stamp rifle a SBR and silencer. As "one", that is at least 16", you just have a silencer.
 
Last edited:
Any bitterness the VA receives is likely well-deserved. I've also seen some craziness from them, although I am admittedly only on the fringe and have mostly avoided interacting with them.

The integral suppression... I'm not sure that's feasible unless the suppressor internals are designed to be easily replaced when they wear out. Someone else already mentioned that a baffle strike in an integral design is also likely to do more damage than a strike on an external suppressor. In that case, you could still remove the damaged suppressor in a pinch and continue using your weapon. I think I'd prefer the most efficient, compact, removable design that could be produced. That would also allow you to more easily upgrade suppressors as improvements became available.

The idea overall at least makes sense to me. Tactical advantages and protecting the welfare of your troops... what's not to like?
 
An integral suppressor isn't even necessarily "one" with the barrel --necessarily. There's not really much of a mechanical reason one could not have a sleeve with baffles attached to it or stacked inside it, slide or thread over a ported-but-otherwise-smooth barrel that would be entirely replaceable (just hang a few baffles over the end of the internal muzzle for the recoil benefits and more traditional suppression). And as far as service life, there's little need for anything but a 'secret squirrel' covert silenced weapon to require very close fitted baffles that could be struck or worn by gasses; we're just trying to moderate the BOOM we're so accustomed to, here ;)

I'm picturing the SIG MPX integral suppressor setup, with an outer sheath that fits over the baffles which may (or may not, as legally allowed) be attached to the barrel. Just think if all these tubular AR hand guards that are the rage right now, were in fact suppression devices integral to the barrel, barrel nut, or upper.

So long as the thing is armorer cleanable, I don't see why an enlistee would need to be cleaning his can out; it's not like they're shooting rimfire, or thousands upon thousands of rounds between armorer checkups.

TCB
 
Why not flip flop the current fast/flat/light to slow, heavy deep penetration rounds...like maybe a 10mm carbine. The blast would be naturally reduced and the weapon would still be just as effective. Only issue now is 200 gr projectiles vs 55 gr projectiles...can't carry nearly as many due to weight.
 
this type of system HAS been done before. You just have to get creative with the google foo to find it. Its sooo darn SIMPLE even i should have thought of it years ago.

but anyone with a drill press, the ability to remove the barrel/upper, the ability to CAREFULLY calculate the hole size and spacing/pattern of the holes, can do it.

1 or 2 aftermarket parts totally maybe 100.00 can turn ANY ar platform into an internally suppressed gun.
 
The answer is yes it can be done,but your not going to see a production run as the market for one would be nill.


Contact Red Jacket Firearms and for a deposit they would most likely build you one chambered for 556.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top