Jump to content

Silencers in combat arms


Bluehawk
 Share

Recommended Posts

Stumbled on an article (Washington Times) today 23 Nov 2016 - titled:

"Marine Corps experiment silences entire infantry battalion's weapons"

 

(Am not posting the link - way too much excess political nonsense advertising comes with it.)

 

However, here are a few notable (to an airman) quotes from the article on which some clarification, history, theory and observations might be warranted:

 

"Maj. Gen. John Love of 2nd Marine Division out of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, is gathering data on the way suppressors improve battlefield communication and efficiency. Early testing at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms indicates that suppressing everything from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns can dramatically assist U.S. warfighters."

 

“ 'It increases their ability to command and control, to coordinate with each other,' Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade told the defense website. 'They shoot better, because they can focus more, and they get more discipline with their fire. […] 'When I show how much overmatch we gain … it will have sold itself.' ”

 

"The current price tag for lawmakers to consider stands at $700,000 per infantry battalion."

 

My questions:

 

1. Have silencers been tried or used on a unit-size scale in warfare, American or otherwise, in the past?

 

2. Does this seem like as great an idea to anyone else as it does to me?

 

3. What are or might be the mechanical/practical/on-the-ground/technical drawbacks to having silencers in use, if any?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They suppressed a company, not the entire battalion. The company referred to in this article that is testing this concept is mine...we just returned from ITX. First, they are suppressors, not silencers. They have been used by special forces for years...the TM for the ones we have is dated 1997. This is the first time an entire conventional force has been equipped with them. The suppressors greatly reduce battlefield noise, however not entirely, and allow for easier verbal communication between troops during an engagement. We are currently writing the after-action report on these on the staff and O level...but the test is not complete, they will be accompanying us on deployment. I will refrain from commenting further outside of official channels for the moment, as we have not submitted our AAR to higher as of yet, having only returned from the 6 week exercise a few days ago

 

The only suppressors we have been issued to date are for the M4/M16 series weapons...we received nothing to suppress crew serves, however, the article may have confused the long issued 'flash suppressor' as being part of the suppressor experiment

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a photo I took of my platoon zeroing their suppressed rifles the first week we were there. I took a grand total of 7 photos because I was busy doing infantry things, and this is the only one that came out clear...

100_0171.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a retired grunt who utilizes hearing aids this concept is a long time in coming. I received them while still on active duty and have worn them ever since. My understanding from my particular case is that high frequency "crack" of small arms fire is horrible in regards to hearing loss. As a left handed shooter my hearing loss is worse in my right hear which bore the brunt of firing noise. Ear plugs and "cans" are great and should always be worn. (Weren't emphasized or enforced during my time.) Suppressors are a great tool for protecting hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

they are suppressors, not silencers.....

No flame intended but I'm always curious as to why people make this distinction. The argument is often something along the lines of "they don't make them silent like in the movies, they just suppress the sound." OK, so who doesn't know that? When the original inventors, the patent documents and even the military nomenclature for many years was "silencers" I wonder who came along and demanded the change to "suppressors."

 

Sorry for the diversion. It is a fascinating topic and tremendous response from a firsthand participant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No flame intended but I'm always curious as to why people make this distinction. The argument is often something along the lines of "they don't make them silent like in the movies, they just suppress the sound." OK, so who doesn't know that? When the original inventors, the patent documents and even the military nomenclature for many years was "silencers" I wonder who came along and demanded the change to "suppressors."

 

Sorry for the diversion. It is a fascinating topic and tremendous response from a firsthand participant.

My guess is because they suppress muzzle flash as well as sound, and the term silencer wouldn't encompass its true capabilities. I am a believer that words have meaning, so I like the fact they are now referred to as suppressors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brig, how many weapons in a batt.? Trying to get a rough cost of per weapon.

 

I've been shooting suppressed AR's for a year or two and I think this is a great idea. The reduction in hearing injuries would justify it to me. I would also think it would help in a combat situation and actually allow people to hear commands better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

normaninvasion

Nice cameo Brig. Men look pretty tired toward the end of the clip. Have you been testing in house to house, city style street fighting scenarios?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice, but with suppressors retaining most of the hot gasses that are usually expelled, In a sustained engagement you will overheat your can and barrel much quicker. this will likely lead to baffle strikes at minimum and eventual can failure. When you remove the can you have a POI shift that must be corrected as well.

 

Hopefully they can make it work with minimal issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be nice, but with suppressors retaining most of the hot gasses that are usually expelled, In a sustained engagement you will overheat your can and barrel much quicker. this will likely lead to baffle strikes at minimum and eventual can failure. When you remove the can you have a POI shift that must be corrected as well.

 

Hopefully they can make it work with minimal issues.

Hmmmmmmm...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Brig, how many weapons in a batt.? Trying to get a rough cost of per weapon.

 

I've been shooting suppressed AR's for a year or two and I think this is a great idea. The reduction in hearing injuries would justify it to me. I would also think it would help in a combat situation and actually allow people to hear commands better.

 

It would readlly matter how many the want to suppress, and if they want to suppress H&S company or not to reduce cost, if they want to suppress weapons guys who are already carrying around loud noise-makers, etc. We were told these things only cost about $300 each to the government.

 

 

 

Nice cameo Brig. Men look pretty tired toward the end of the clip. Have you been testing in house to house, city style street fighting scenarios?

It was the second training event they did, so they were still acclimating to the elevation and terrain, most of these guys having never had previous desert/mountain experience. The end of the video is maybe the half-way mark of the range. We did test in one urban live-fire range, but the houses were all made of concrete and obviously live fire MOUT has all kinds of safety considerations. The rest of the urban ops required us to take the suppressors off so we could use BFAs to fire blanks, because of the geometries.

 

 

 

It would be nice, but with suppressors retaining most of the hot gasses that are usually expelled, In a sustained engagement you will overheat your can and barrel much quicker. this will likely lead to baffle strikes at minimum and eventual can failure. When you remove the can you have a POI shift that must be corrected as well.

 

Hopefully they can make it work with minimal issues.

 

Indeed...they can heat up quite a bit, and a handful of guys indeed burned their wrists and even uniforms/gear. The Gunner mentioned in the article pushed out a few suppressor sleeves, essentially silicone covers, which help reduce the heat signature and prevent direct contact with hot metal. Don't think they do anything for the heat and potential baffle strikes, which did occur with some of the IARs, however they did prevent skin burns and reduced the amount of mirage appearing in the optics

 

Here's what we got...you can imagine the inappropriate jokes these things led to...

download (2).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Bibliotecario

Another benefit would be allowing combat in urban areas without violating noise ordinances.

 

Like most things this isn't new. I believe that over a century ago, the army tried the Maxim silencer. Supposedly they gave it up when they found the noise of a supersonic bullet was as bad as the noise from the rifle--the example I recall was firing a M1903 rifle parallel to a railroad right of way, and hearing a fusilade of CRACKs! as the bullet passed each telegraph pole.

 

But as someone else who spends much of his time asking people to repeat what they said, safeguarding troop hearing is a positive. I, too, wondered about the effect on zero previously mentioned. But while this could impact range scores, would it be of any significance in modern combat? I'm not inferring it would or would not be; I have no idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rifle is supposed to be zeroed with the suppressor, and confirmed without it

 

Troop hearing conservation has not been mentioned to us as a reason behind this concept being fielded. At the end of the day, I doubt they really care, as hearing loss is expected in combat arms and more often than not reduced hearing loss come audiogram time results in our baseline just being reset. Nor is it geared towards urban operations specifically, the military is returning to its conventional roots

 

Troop-to-troop communication seems to be the big takeaway

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ear plugs and "cans" are great and should always be worn. (Weren't emphasized or enforced during my time.) Suppressors are a great tool for protecting hearing.

Yeah, in CONUS training, 'earpro' was enforced religiously.

But out in the sandbox? Yeah, not likely!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that there were at least a couple Army units, non SF units, which used or at least tried suppressors in Iraq. I believe that the Gemtech Halo was what was used. That particular Suppresor simply uses or is used with the standard A2 flash hider already in use on M4 and M16 rifles, and thus requires no special mount and is not a direct thread to the barrel. Others here will no doubt have far better details than I on the Halo use.

 

The down sides are weight, some are 11 oz up to nearly 24 oz if memory serves me right from last time I was looking at suppressor web sites, the fact that the guns dirty up really terribly and really quickly, the potential loss of zero or point of impact change when the suppressor is on and then taken off or on, then off, then back on again, they can come off during firing if the user doesn't properly and securely attach them, they reduce sound but don't eliminate it entirely of course, and then the heat signature. The mirage effect will come quite quickly and can really start to be a bear, especially absent some cover over the suppressor.

 

Many suppressors are sealed units, most in the 556 and 762 tend to be and thus are not user serviceable except for the threads. Some use quick release mounts and thus have springs and such which can break or seize up.

 

There are some great pros to suppressors, and some really bad cons. SF units have used them for years, I am not sure of their overall general experiences with them. They do certainly have their place tho.

 

As an aside, it's all semantics, but some companies actually call their products and name their products silencers, some suppressors, so I guess either can be correct. Some states' laws do the same.

 

Great topic and thread!

 

Brig, can you tell us which company suppressors and which model you all were testing and trying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, in CONUS training, 'earpro' was enforced religiously.

But out in the sandbox? Yeah, not likely!

I'm embarrassed to admit I was my own worse enemy. Never wore earplugs because I felt like I couldn't control the men or wouldn't hear if something went wrong - rifle platoon, 81mm mortar platoon, rifle company, fleet tours, SOI tour - never wore them and should have. Always insisted the Marines wear them so they didn't negatively impact their hearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most common disability claim for the armed services,hearing lose.

Didn't claim disability for it but went about half deef listening to aircraft recip engines every dang day for a couple years... the other half may have been due to too much rock & roll music or just old age. VA was kind enough to allow me a hearing aid though, for the first half and part of the second.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brig, can you tell us which company suppressors and which model you all were testing and trying?

 

Knight's Armament NT-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I served, I routinely heard that the VA would reject any hearing loss complaints when we all got out, because earplugs were pushed so hard and there was no excuse for not using them. Heck, they were part of our battle rattle, and the case had to be seen on our LBVs at all times.

My Dad was a USAF electrical mechanic and worked on F-86Ds for a couple of years in the late 50s. He stood less than 2 feet away from the intake opening when the fighters would be chained to the ground on full power engine tests. He never even saw a earplug, let alone used one.

He's 80 now and while he isn't deaf, he's very hard of hearing and the VA said none of it was related to his service!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... earplugs were pushed so hard and there was no excuse for not using them."

Earplugs or ear anything, were not even mentioned in 1963 USAF, to anyone on my flightline.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rifle is supposed to be zeroed with the suppressor, and confirmed without it

 

 

in that case I'd wager the suppressor bore size is larger than 5.56, that way they still get some useful sound reduction without compromising accuracy to any noticeable degree.

 

if that's not the case, and it's a true 5.56 bored can... it's rather revolutionary

 

cool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...