Marine Corps attempting to dispel Suppressor Myths to the troops with informative video

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Aim1

member
Joined
Oct 24, 2015
Messages
2,310
Not sure everyone can see this video, I couldn't find it in youtube form. Apparently there are Marines who aren't so sure about using suppressors on their weapons as it appears that the Marine Corps is looking at arming a large amount of the Corps, if not all with suppressors in the future. The video is pretty good.



<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/vi...deos/10154324878615194/&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>
 
Well that puts to rest my theory that the rifle battalion deployed fully suppressed to Norway was done so at the demand of greenie Norwegian politicians.
 
Considering the already low velocity being produced with the short barrel demonstrated in the video, the "lethality" is probably already dissimilar to that of a round fired from a longer barrel. In other words, it's probably not like adding a suppressor is going to hurt further. Might as well go for reduced hearing damage and making it more difficult to locate the rifleman. Some ammunition which would consistently fragment upon impact/yaw in soft targets, at reduced velocities, might be nice, too. Have they started deploying such mil/ball ammo?
 
fastbolt said:
Considering the already low velocity being produced with the short barrel demonstrated in the video, the "lethality" is probably already dissimilar to that of a round fired from a longer barrel. In other words, it's probably not like adding a suppressor is going to hurt further.
Click to expand...

It's not going to hurt at all. That's the point of the video. There's no terminal ballistics trade-off being made by sticking a can on a gun.
 
Someone posted this on the comments of that video, is it true?

Well... it's common knowledge unless you've been living under a rock the modern suppressors increase velocity which helps counter POI shift associated to the added weight.

However, in a direct impingement gas system such as an M4, it also increases fouling. It also increases bolt velocity which results in "bolt bounce" and reduced service life on platforms not tuned for suppressors.
 
Does get dirtier for sure in a quicker amount of time in my experience, but this will probably vary based on conditions and ammunition used.

Most people probably only know that in video games adding a suppressor ALWAYS decreases damage and range... : ) I seriously doubt they are transitioning to subsonic FMJ 556 lol, or 22 extra long, so good on them for trying to educate.
Good point on the overgassing aspect when adding the suppressor, easy fix for us, but probably a good bit more of a pain for the military.

Provided the weapons run properly they will be a good advantage to have in any situation I can imagine.
 
Aim1 said:
Someone posted this on the comments of that video, is it true?

Well... it's common knowledge unless you've been living under a rock the modern suppressors increase velocity which helps counter POI shift associated to the added weight.

However, in a direct impingement gas system such as an M4, it also increases fouling. It also increases bolt velocity which results in "bolt bounce" and reduced service life on platforms not tuned for suppressors.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they need to put those A5 buffers on their M4s.:)
 
It's probably not a lucky coincidence that the Marines have been stacking up piston-operated H&K 416's while planning to stick suppressors on everything.
 
A can adds more maintenance, a lot of fouling as you collect it all in the muzzle blast. Without a suppressor the gun vents most of the byproducts of combustion outside of the gun and only accumulates a little bit of them inside. When you add a can you change that, a lot more of the fouling from the burned powder is in the can and with increased back pressure more in the gun too.
A can also traps a lot more of the heat normally discharged in the high pressure gas.


This matters if you are going to fire hundreds of rounds in between cleanings with a gun that has dust and some fouling on it already.
A clean gun and a clean can is great for a quick engagement, but you might see problems during more prolonged engagements by cutting down how many rounds a firearm can fire before it start to have reliability issues. Maybe many guns soldiers are using will keep running but more will choke more often.



You still have to have hearing protection. Explosions and large weapons are louder than the small arms on a battlefield anyways.
However it is certainly a benefit to have all of those soldiers proficient in maintaining and using suppressors.
You can always leave them off a weapon unless the chain of command makes that hard, but you can't add them if you are not ready to field them.
 
Special Forces have been using them for a while. I think they have proven that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
 
The supposedly "low" velocity of barrels in the 14.5" range isn't that much. We've been hitting the enemy with them at longer ranges and they still tend to stop fighting. Instead of the 3100 fps from a 20" barrel the average works out to 2600 fps. And the small unit often has a dedicated long distance equipped sharpshooter with them.

A 10.5" will still carry 1,000 foot pounds out past 75m - which is plenty for MO pistol season for deer - and there are anecdotal stories of special unit shooters getting hits to 400m with theirs.

As for retaining and collecting gas residue, if it traps more inside the gas system, it's irrelevant whether it's DI or piston - it's trapping more. Which is easier to clean in the field? DI has demostrated it's much easier for the last 45 years, less parts involved, and less time doing it. Piston fans love to say they can take it but the reality is you not only have to tear down the bolt and carrier you also have the handguards off and the piston with cylinder disassembled, too. Piston means you get a much more complicated set up to detach the rigidly mounted freefloat. How is that helping when you need to get a quick wipedown in the field when it's quiet? More parts in your lap does not equal better maintenance, it's a hindrance.

I don't remember the Garand doing so well with gas residue, if the piston got stuck it was unit or depot maintenance level to get it out. And they weren't shooting full auto or suppressed.

What silencers (ATF approved language) will do is get better powder in the ammo - which has always been notoriously low bid and dirty. Those units that do shoot suppressed using SBR's aren't using standard issue ammo, they are using Black Hills with a better grade and flash suppressed. If the powder doesn't leave as much residue in the first place, there will be less to deal with. We could do a lot better than we have been.
 
ATLDave wrote:
...Marines have been stacking up piston-operated H&K 416's while planning to stick suppressors on everything.
Click to expand...

It's easy to extrapolate a video to the troops dispelling the myths about suppressors and a unit test in Norway to widespread adoption, but does that make it true? Have the Marines:
  • Included funding for silencers in current or anticipated future budget requests?
  • Issued a contract for development of silencers to meet their particular specifications?
  • Issued any requests for proposal (RFP) from any silencer manufacturers?
  • Issued any acquisition contracts for future delivery of silencers?
The answers to these questions are not classified. In fact most of it is available on-line. Yet, I can find no funding request for large-scale silencer development much less acquisition and I haven't found a silencer manufacturer or defense contractor issuing a press release for their work on Marine silencers.
 
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/...umors-abound-pure-fleeted-m27-standard-rifle/

I like this rumor the best. The Army would like to use M4's for another 50 years. They probably have a million dollars worth of parts in a giant warehouse somewhere. That was the same excuse they used when they decided the Garand had to be 30-06 instead of a 7 mm something. They had a mountain of 30-06 ammo on hand.

When I was in the Navy (1970) they were operating a C-117 that was built in 1947 from leftover parts from WW2 C-47's.
 
Last edited:
Aim1 said:
Someone posted this on the comments of that video, is it true?

Well... it's common knowledge unless you've been living under a rock the modern suppressors increase velocity which helps counter POI shift associated to the added weight.

However, in a direct impingement gas system such as an M4, it also increases fouling. It also increases bolt velocity which results in "bolt bounce" and reduced service life on platforms not tuned for suppressors.
Click to expand...


Increase in velocity counter POI shift? Bull Feces. POI shift is significant but repeatable with a quality silencer. And it is not significant enough to cause a miss at 200 yards or less.

Bolt Bounce? More bull feces.


It does increase bolt carrier velocity. This can be mitigated by properly spec'ed gas ports, or with adjustable gas blocks. Extra power actions springs and heavier buffers help as well. A suppressor isn't going to significantly alter firearm life cycle. Yeah, they get dirtier. Not enough to matter in a standard loadout.

I use one on an 11.5 and on a 16. It's a range toy for me, but I really enjoy it. For groups of men in a firefight that need to communicate, sometimes inside buildings? I would say they could prove indispensible.


wj8d7Tc.jpg
 
Tirod said:
The supposedly "low" velocity of barrels in the 14.5" range isn't that much. We've been hitting the enemy with them at longer ranges and they still tend to stop fighting. Instead of the 3100 fps from a 20" barrel the average works out to 2600 fps. And the small unit often has a dedicated long distance equipped sharpshooter with them....
Click to expand...

My comment about the low velocity was based strictly upon the low velocity demonstrated in the video clip, with that demo rifle, with and without the suppressor.

Once the velocity drops - due to either initial low velocity (barrel length) or increased range - and it's only bullet yaw disruption occurring in tissue (without accompanying fragmentation), the remaining calculated ME may not prove as much of an advantage as if it was accompanied with fragmentation.

Sure, changes in bullet design/ammunition can help mitigate these things.
 
ATLDave said:
It's not going to hurt at all. That's the point of the video. There's no terminal ballistics trade-off being made by sticking a can on a gun.
Click to expand...

As long as the gun is already producing such a low velocity for a 5.56 round, as demonstrated in the video, it wouldn't matter one way or the other.

Gassing effect issues can be mitigated, to a degree, by the can design and being made for the rifle/ammunition.
 
fastbolt said:
As long as the gun is already producing such a low velocity for a 5.56 round, as demonstrated in the video, it wouldn't matter one way or the other.
Click to expand...

And it won't matter on a long-barreled rifle or a mid-barreled rifle or slower rounds or faster rounds. The reason it doesn't matter has nothing to do with barrel length. The reason it doesn't matter is because suppressors don't reduce velocity of projectiles.
 
I get your point, but you're missing mine.;)

Yes, modern cans using baffles instead of wipes ought not reduce velocity. (Although the MP5SD's also lost gas through the integral barrel ports, but that fad mostly went away in LE when rifles began replacing them.) Additional gas pressure contained in the baffled system might even result in an infinitesimal "increase" of pressure and potential "velocity", depending on the design. Design can help mitigate heat buildup and help prolong service life, too. Etc, etc.

My point (which probably ought to have been made using mild sarcasm quotes, I suppose), was that using the short barreled demo gun, with it's already sub-2400fps velocity, even so close to the muzzle, it ought not have mattered whether a 5.56 suffered any further velocity degradation even if a can did cause velocity degradation.

Realistically, I'd be more concerned about the design of the suppressor selected.
 
I think that the 0.6% difference in velocity in the video from suppressed to un-suppressed is insignificant. Too many other variables can move those numbers up or down easily.


.
 
Whatever the issues with suppressor use are (run dirtier, increased bolt speed, etc.), they are things that can be mitigated with changes in powder, buffer weight, or re-engineering of the gas action, since it will probably be an all-or-none use when they are introduced. In a full-on firefight, I would imagine the barrels get within a few degrees of cook-off temps, which would serve to burn out much of the accumulating deposits. It might create a bit more to clean for the rifleman afterwards, but the advantages of suppressed shooting far outweigh the disadvantages. I've not bought one for my personal guns yet because I refuse to cave in to the archaic BATFE regs; the guys I shoot long range with though are all using them, and I can say for a fact that there's no detriment to their marksmanship, out to and past 1000 yards. After this past weekend, I may reconsider my feelings and buy one for a couple of my rifles. It was a joy to be able to stand behind a prone shooter, without hearing protection, and listen to the zzzzzipp of a .308 round heading downrange, with a report no louder than a .22 rimfire. I wouldn't make it a habit, but it was surprising how much quieter even a supersonic round can be. Once these Marines try it a while, they'll be hard-core converts.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
they decided the Garand had to be 30-06 instead of a 7 mm something.
Click to expand...
That would be 7x51, better known as .276 pedersen.
MacArthur (who was Army Chief of Staff) made the decision based on 5-10 billiyards of M2 ball on hand.
The change in the barrel contour to suit the .30-06 is why the op rod on a Grand is "bent." In the .276, the shoulder is slimmer and the op rod perfectly straight.
 
Aim1 said:
Someone posted this on the comments of that video, is it true?

Well... it's common knowledge unless you've been living under a rock the modern suppressors increase velocity which helps counter POI shift associated to the added weight.

However, in a direct impingement gas system such as an M4, it also increases fouling. It also increases bolt velocity which results in "bolt bounce" and reduced service life on platforms not tuned for suppressors.
Click to expand...

I have read that a suspressor adds dwell time.
1 inch of suspressor is same as adding 1/2 inch of barrel. So a little extra gas is about it. Could cause bolt speed problems on rifle already close to being over gased. And good chance of point of impact change when adding or removing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C-grunt
11.5 inch AR at range
Replies
16
Views
467
RayRoy
R
Stefan A
  • Locked
Lee Auto Drum Powder Measure quality...
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
157
Views
5K
9mmepiphany
9mmepiphany
Back
Top