Another silencer question

[Tom Bri]

One thing I have been wondering about. I may not agree with the reasoning behind prohibiting silencers on civilian guns, but I can understand it from a politician's point of view. What I don't understand is why military small arms don't have silencers. A really effective silencer on a military weapon would oviously be too big and heavy, but something to at least cut the blast and direct it away from the shooter shouldn't be too much to ask for. I know a lot of older guys with hearing aids!

Is this an international convention? I have never seen foreign troops with anything like that either.

 

[Nightcrawler]

They're expensive, for one. For two, these things do wear out. Military weapons tend to get a lot of rounds through them.

Thirdly, they add weight and length to the weapon.

It's not unheard of. An early shorty version of the M16 came standard with a mini-suppressor of sorts to reduce the blast and noise. (I believe it had an 11.5" barrel.)

 

[Feanaro]

Cost. Silencers, even if bought in bulk and at a discount would be expensive.

Maintenance. Just another thing to get nasty, gunky and dirty.

 

[E=MC^2]

I believe it was in '96 when the Army Times had an article on a new suppressed pistol that had been adopted by units at Ft. Bragg, NC.

Here's a photo and discription.

In the article, the ability to mount a suppressor was one of the main reasons for choosing it.

They are used, but applications are rare. I also had an article of a suppressed .22lr pistol used in Vietnam. One of the short stories told of an operator that had shot a walking NVA soldier in the a$$ while hiding along a roadside. The NVA grabbed his rear as though he had been stung by a bee and continued walking. Apparently the device was very quite. It appeared to be a single-shot in the photo with a large diameter can.

 

[DougCxx]

...They're expensive, for one. For two, these things do wear out. .... Thirdly, they add weight and length to the weapon. ...

-Well, um,,,,, no, that takes a while, and not really much. The main reason they aren't used on regular rifles is that they can get damaged very easily from general banging around, and then have to be removed anyway. The US service rifle has the last few inches of its barrel left exposed to launch grenades or whatever; a nice little silencer woud fit on there just fine and only extend a few inches beyond that.... ...but then of course, you'd need to take it off to launch grenades....
----------
-And I had not seen a cutaway of the Lapwood Husher before;
I must say I am underwhelmed.
It is just a Maxim-type with baffles machined instead of stamped--which is the justification for most other silencer designs. The Maxim-type was the first mass-produced, and the modern examples continue to be rated among the very best for cost, durability and performance. The reason that so many other people have tried to make baffles so many other ways was (and continues to be) simply that making proper stamped recurve baffles requires a LARGE hydraulic press, and then the baffles require precise heat-treating to regain their proper stiffness. So they try to make something kinda-sorta like the Maxim-type baffles, but turned on a lathe instead of stamped from a flat sheet.
~

 

[Tom Bri]

OK, not too surprising, cost, length, weight etc. But how about the last part of the question. Something that may not be a true silencer, but just to cut the blast or direct it away from the ear. A detatchable cone would seem to be enough for that. Maybe I am just oversensitive, but I sure wouldn't want to get my eardrums put out.