USMC in Norway using suppressors

Status
Not open for further replies.

CapnMac

Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
17,700
Location
DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
Saw a link from Brownells on an article where Bravo Co, 1st Batt 2nd Marines is on rotational deployment to Norway, Not really news, other than the entire unit has deployed with suppressors. For all weapons from 5.56 to cal..50

The conclusions from a couple sergeants quoted sounds like this is a winning idea. They cit the ability to communicate without having to shout over gunfire. The article even states that they have reduced radio loadout--something the modern micromanaged combat environment probably will not allow.

It's an interesting wrinkle in the military equation.

Which poses a corollary question of does that wrinkle translate into militia service Or will vets "rate" a suppressor after service.

Lots of good THR fodder here--like does this suggest that modern military arms have integrated suppression. Which also poses a question on adopting, say 6.8grendel vice, say, a 7x40 subsonic round.

Article:
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/11/marine-unit-norway-first-deploy-rifle-suppressors.html
 
Read that. They are talking about perhaps using suppressors for all Marines.


Also, supposedly the Marines are looking for a larger caliber also, like a 6.5 or 6.8 to reach out farther than 5.56.
 
I think they should certainly have the option. I don't know about built in suppressors, as there are downsides to using them, but I do think that when they adopt new weapons it should be with the mindset that they should be well suited to suppressed use (short stroke piston operated, adjustable gas settings, etc.). That way they can issue cans to the units who need them, and those units can decide whether to use them or not when and where they need them.
 
I bet this has more to do with the political requirements of Norwegian greenies and noise mitigation than it does with USMC operational considerations...

I was wondering the same thing. I don't know of anywhere in Europe that allows you to fire unsuppressed outside of a firing range. That's not to say there isn't a place, I just don't know of any. It might have something to do with the EU.
 
I was wondering the same thing. I don't know of anywhere in Europe that allows you to fire unsuppressed outside of a firing range. That's not to say there isn't a place, I just don't know of any. It might have something to do with the EU.

I'm sorry, but that's not true. There is not a single regulation on EU-level (and Norway would not even a member anyways) concerning shooting outside of a firing range, and I don't know any countrys that restrict you to using a supressor when hunting or shooting outside of a firing range. There are some countrys, where you are not allowed to dicharge a firearm outside of firing ranges in general, but none of those who allow that have the requirement for using a supressor. Just the opposite - supressors are outlawed or at least hard to get in about half of the countries in the EU.

As for noise mitigation - the norwegian military themselves do not use supressors on a regular basis, and they certainly have more than enough uninhabited land to train on. Their population density is about half of the US.
 
I'm sorry, but that's not true. There is not a single regulation on EU-level (and Norway would not even a member anyways) concerning shooting outside of a firing range, and I don't know any countrys that restrict you to using a supressor when hunting or shooting outside of a firing range. There are some countrys, where you are not allowed to dicharge a firearm outside of firing ranges in general, but none of those who allow that have the requirement for using a supressor. Just the opposite - supressors are outlawed or at least hard to get in about half of the countries in the EU.

As for noise mitigation - the norwegian military themselves do not use supressors on a regular basis, and they certainly have more than enough uninhabited land to train on. Their population density is about half of the US.

It's more complicated than that. While there are no laws saying you have to use a suppressor while hunting, there are noise pollution laws if you're near houses or in or near a natural protected area. Both of those conditions apply to most areas where you can hunt.

Norway I don't know about. And while they're not part of the EU they're part of the EU trade zone. I don't know if that requires them to mirror any environmental regulations or not. I've never been north of Denmark so I really have no idea. I know there's a lot more open space in Scandinavia, so maybe they have places to hunt that are more remote like we do here.
 
When they say all service weapons does that include pistols? I didn't see any in the pics or any mention in the article.

I can't believe it has taken this long. They have been around for over 100 years. There might be some scenarios where a suppressor is not wanted but i'd think for training and the vast majority time having one makes sense.
 
When they say all service weapons does that include pistols? I didn't see any in the pics or any mention in the article.

I can't believe it has taken this long. They have been around for over 100 years. There might be some scenarios where a suppressor is not wanted but i'd think for training and the vast majority time having one makes sense.

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.
 
Also suppressors don't play well with every weapon and may cause fowling much quicker.

Barring the above I don't know why (cost/logistics aside) why any serious fighting force wouldn't want a suppressed weapon in normal use. Little if any flash signature, less sound signature at the source even with supersonic ammo, allows for much easier communication, close in work is more "comfortable" for your team members.

I really think the biggest issue would be long term reliability/need to thouroughly clean more often.
 
As for the cost of good suppressors a lot of that would quickly go away IMO with economies of scale. At their heart suppressors are not all that complicated. Precision machines yes but not all that complicated.
 
CapnMac wrote:
Which also poses a question on adopting, say 6.8grendel vice, say, a 7x40 subsonic round.

Special Operations troops already have a range of non-standard weapons and ammunition at their disposal.

Given the NATO standardization on 9mm, .223 and .308 and the ripple effect it has had on other nations, I don't see a move away from those standard cartridges in my lifetime (and the actuarial tables say I've still got 28 years left).
 
Interesting topic... back when I was in the service (1968-1971) suppressors were a classified item of gear.... My how times have changed.
 
As for the cost of good suppressors a lot of that would quickly go away IMO with economies of scale. At their heart suppressors are not all that complicated. Precision machines yes but not all that complicated.

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.
 
cslinger wrote:
Barring the above I don't know why (cost/logistics aside) why any serious fighting force wouldn't want a suppressed weapon in normal use.

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 supressors would never be adopted on a widespread basis at all.

Still, if we are going to ignore those robust problems, then we should also look at the fact that existing military weapons were not designed with suppressor use in mind so the addition of a suppressor:
  • Increases the length of the weapon
  • Increases the weight of the weapon which affects aim and balance.
  • Increases the weight of the combat load for the soldier (so what do we take away from an already overloaded soldier's kit to allow the addition of the supressor?)
  • Affects weapon function (i.e. can the M203 grenade launcher be used with a supressor attached to the rifle?), and
  • Requires additional training.
So, if I'm a SEAL or Ranger, a silencer may be required for the mission. But, if I'm walking a patrol in Iraq in the summer, the last thing I would want on me or my men would be the weight and bulk of a silencer.
 
It's more complicated than that. While there are no laws saying you have to use a suppressor while hunting, there are noise pollution laws if you're near houses or in or near a natural protected area. Both of those conditions apply to most areas where you can hunt.

Norway I don't know about. And while they're not part of the EU they're part of the EU trade zone. I don't know if that requires them to mirror any environmental regulations or not. I've never been north of Denmark so I really have no idea. I know there's a lot more open space in Scandinavia, so maybe they have places to hunt that are more remote like we do here.

While there are noise pollution laws, they have no direct effect on hunting. It might be the case in Denmark, that they wrote the requirement for supressors into their gun laws, but it certainly is not a direct effect of the noise pollution laws.
In Austria and Germany I know for certain, that there is no regulation on that at all and hunting without supressor is legal in the whole country (with a few exceptions in national parks etc.).

Noise pollution laws in the EU in general (as long as they are based on directives) are more geared towards continous noise from things like factories, roads, railways and things like that (commercial shooting ranges would fall under that regulation), and not from single, isolated noises like shots fired while hunting.
 
While there are noise pollution laws, they have no direct effect on hunting. It might be the case in Denmark, that they wrote the requirement for supressors into their gun laws, but it certainly is not a direct effect of the noise pollution laws.
In Austria and Germany I know for certain, that there is no regulation on that at all and hunting without supressor is legal in the whole country (with a few exceptions in national parks etc.).

Noise pollution laws in the EU in general (as long as they are based on directives) are more geared towards continous noise from things like factories, roads, railways and things like that (commercial shooting ranges would fall under that regulation), and not from single, isolated noises like shots fired while hunting.

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.
 
Norway is not subject to EU regulation. It is however infested, albeit to a lesser extent than most of the Continent, with interfering, busy-body, anti-militarist, greenies. I don't know that they are involved here or whether the current govt is a coalition, but the idea that a junior coalition partner could have demanded this as a condition to the deployment is hardly far-fetched.
 
I was in SOF for my entire career. Suppressors were standard issue items for the M4 and most of our sniper systems, starting in the early 90s. In some cases we were provided supressors for our pistols but I don't recall them ever being used operationally and rarely even carried- think about what the holster would look like. On some occasions (before they were obsolete) suppressed MP5 smgs were used. They are a nice tool in the tool box but that is all they are- just a tool. They heat up, they heat the weapon up, they usually effect accuracy to a degree, there is a "zero shift" once they are removed, and they make the weapon longer and heavier. Sometimes they just aren't the answer. And the idea that troops can forgo some type of hearing protection when using them is ridiculous and ill-advised, at least when it is for real (even if all individual and crew served weapons are suppressed) Atleast until silent explosives, breaching charges, 12 gauge breaching rounds, grenades, flash bangs, and the like are developed.Silent bang. Hmmm. And speaking of crew served weapons- will the machine gunners be issued multiple suppressors? With any amount of sustained fire, they will need to periodically change barrels. More often if suppressed due to increased heat. Or is removing a hot can and placing it on the cool barrel going to be another sub-task in machine gun crew drills? And how will the effects of incoming ENEMY fire be addressed? You know- RPGs, suicide vests and IEDs, or even small arms discharged in close proximity in enclosed spaces like structures, caves, tunnels, trenches, etc.? We still had to wear some type of hearing protection (Usually peltor com-tacs slaved into our communications) or in some cases even various types of earplugs.
 
But think about it...how do you locate an enemy force? By fire output noise; that's how you flank them. Communications is maintained. Reacting quickly as the suppressed unit, allows you to operate quickly during that first contact and enemy confusion, and move, or retreat...or flank them. A penetrating assault force in an urban area, would be very difficult to intercept and engage if all you had to go on was rifle reports.
 
Interesting topic... back when I was in the service (1968-1971) suppressors were a classified item of gear.... My how times have changed.
First off, thank you for your service. I had the opportunity when I was going through training in '87 and a few other tines since to fire some of those older suppressors from that era. My experience (and talking to the "senior" members of the unit at the time who served back when I was in diapers) is that the cans of that era weren't nearly as good as what's available now. The only ones that really worked well were the ones for 22 rimfire weapons like the High Standard HD and for SMGs like the integral ones for the Brit Sten and L34 (Streling) and M45 (Swede k) and the M3 (grease gun). None of these weapons (except the M3) were standard issue or even US, so naturally MOST service members never even saw them- let alone got to use them. One old NCO talked about using a Delisle carbine on a mission and how awesome it was, and how sorry he was to have to turn it back in to wherever after he was finished with it. Always wish I had a chance to just fire one of those.
 
But think about it...how do you locate an enemy force? By fire output noise; that's how you flank them. Communications is maintained. Reacting quickly as the suppressed unit, allows you to operate quickly during that first contact and enemy confusion, and move, or retreat...or flank them. A penetrating assault force in an urban area, would be very difficult to intercept and engage if all you had to go on was rifle reports.
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top