# USMC Deploying with Suppressors instead of Radios



## Kirkhill (12 May 2017)

The thing I wonder about is the effect on lethality.

Concurrent with this exercise both the Marines and the Army are looking at interim 7.62s and future 6mms to improve lethality and range.  I thought that the silencer negatively impacted muzzle velocity and thus range and lethality.



> Marine Unit in Norway First to Deploy with Rifle Suppressors
> 
> Military.com | 11 May 2017 | by Hope Hodge Seck
> 
> ...



http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/05/11/marine-unit-norway-first-deploy-rifle-suppressors.html#.WRSqKa2T8_J.twitter

_edit title for tech accuracy
_


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 May 2017)

Very interesting concept - wonder how much extra maintenance the supressors are?


----------



## PuckChaser (12 May 2017)

Suppressor still adds weight, and as they said, the section MGs aren't silenced. I don't think they're going to achieve any real weight savings. Intrateam radios also allow quick passage of orders where yelling at people in a patrol would be a security concern. They should be looking at options for generating power by the soldiers moving or solar-recharging batteries to reduce that weight load.


----------



## brihard (12 May 2017)

Long term they'll probably pay for themselves in reduced hearing loss claims through VA.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

One only need look to .50 BMG suppresed sniper rifle as to whether it affects the ballistics to a concernable degree or not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Very interesting concept - wonder how much extra maintenance the supressors are?


Cleaning is not much different than the rest of the rifle. Take it apart and clean it. The bigger problem is the abnormal wear on the baffles due to high heat and pressure deterioration. It doesn't take many rounds before the internals require replacement. Hence the reason they are not used in SAWs and Pigs. They can be used in automatic small arms (think UZI, Sten, M16, etc).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

Chris,
I took the liberty of fixing your title.   8)

Calling a suppresor a silencer is like calling a magazine a clip. [


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Chris,
> I took the liberty of fixing your title.   8)
> 
> Calling a suppresor a silencer is like calling a magazine a clip. [



Seen recceguy.  Gladly accept the correction.  Thanks.

You know, thinking about this.   Is there merit in suppressing the rifles while not worrying about the machine guns?  I mean, when those guns begin to chatter is stealth the major consideration?  On the other hand the ability to pick your shots with a rifle and not be detected .... that would have some value, I would think.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen recceguy.  Gladly accept the correction.  Thanks.
> 
> You know, thinking about this.   Is there merit in suppressing the rifles while not worrying about the machine guns?  I mean, when those guns begin to chatter is stealth the major consideration?  On the other hand the ability to pick your shots with a rifle and not be detected .... that would have some value, I would think.



I would imagine the opposition would likely and naturally put their attention to the MGs. The advantage to the suppresed rifle is lack of signature. Aural and visual. It's frustrating and time consuming to search for ghosts, especially at night, while those pesky MGs are chattering and their buddies are springing incomrehesible leaks for no discernable reason. I would not have a problem calling it a force multiplier. YMMV.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 May 2017)

Thier goal is to be able to communicate by mouth instead of radio, which is defeated when you have 2x LMGs providing suppressing fire, let alone a GPMG.

Having an intrateam radio also adds flexible into your comma plan, removing the single point of failure with the TL/Sect Come having the only radio...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Thier goal is to be able to communicate by mouth instead of radio, which is defeated when you have 2x LMGs providing suppressing fire, let alone a GPMG.
> 
> Having an intrateam radio also adds flexible into your comma plan, removing the single point of failure with the TL/Sect Come having the only radio...



Your job is safe  [ it'll be fifty years before the CAF catches up :facepalm:

It may even appease the eviromental SJWs because of the reducion in lithium batteries.  :rofl:


----------



## PuckChaser (13 May 2017)

It's not job protection; if I'm providing Signallers to work below platoon-level we're in a world of hurt. Enabling C2 on the battlespace is my job, and I see the most flexible/effective way to do that is a lightweight and secure radio system that is also capable as an alternate section-level radio.

This isn't 1950, our technological overmatch is what makes us a first-world army.


----------



## Fabius (13 May 2017)

Suppressors are not a panacea for communications neither are lightweight radios. I am surprized the USMC is actually operating at the team level without radios but perhaps.
In an urban fight,  fighting from stairwell to stairwell in the middle of a hotel tower complex lightweight radios are still likely not going to solve all the problems.  Similarly in a denied electronic environment the radios may all be jammed thereby necessitating reverting back to verbal direction relayed from soldier to soldier.
Having an arms room concept with suppressors, personnel role radios, etc etc is a better COA.  Let the chain of command decide what capability they need for each mission based on the threat and environment.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

Whoa guys! I was poking fun a siggies. Go easy.

I'm not arguing with you about pros and cons of the article.

Go back and look at the question Chris, the OP, asked in his first post.


----------



## Fabius (13 May 2017)

A suppressor will actually increase velocity slightly due to the propellant gas remaining behind the projectile for a bit longer.  The increase will be very marginal though, in the neighbourhood of 1-3%.
Actual effect on lethality is minimal as the velocity increase is not enough to substantially change the terminal ballistics of the respective round at applicable distances.  The bullet will perform the same in terms of yaw, fragmentation, expansion etc. suppressed as it would unsuppressed.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

Fabius said:
			
		

> A suppressor will actually increase velocity slightly due to the propellant gas remaining behind the projectile for a bit longer.  The increase will be very marginal though, in the neighbourhood of 1-3%.
> Actual effect on lethality is minimal as the velocity increase is not enough to substantially change the terminal ballistics of the respective round at applicable distances.  The bullet will perform the same in terms of yaw, fragmentation, expansion etc. suppressed as it would unsuppressed.



Agreed. A suppresor is similar to adding the same length of barrel as the suppresor is long. Every inch a barrel is cut back reduces velocity and accuracy as the range increases. Every inch longer increases it (to a point).


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 May 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Cleaning is not much different than the rest of the rifle. Take it apart and clean it. The bigger problem is the abnormal wear on the baffles due to high heat and pressure deterioration. It doesn't take many rounds before the internals require replacement. Hence the reason they are not used in SAWs and Pigs. They can be used in automatic small arms (think UZI, Sten, M16, etc).


Seen - does that make the maintenance load on "the system" more than zero, but managable?


----------



## Kirkhill (13 May 2017)

Interesting commentary.

It is interesting in that the infanteer, with optics, with NVGs, with suppressors and, I'll assume, a Personal Role Radio is becoming more and more like a scout-sniper of WW2 vintage.  In fact he is vastly better equipped than those fellows were.

And yet we still organize our infantry as if they were equipped with bolt action clubs with iron sights and a light machine gun.

It took a hundred years from the time that the Brits introduced the Baker Rifle for them to modify the structure developed by Marlborough for Brown Bess.  

It is now a hundred years since we adopted the battalion structure we currently employ.

Riflemen used to be Special.  Then infanteers became riflemen.

Is it time for the infanteers to become more Special again?  Increased dispersion?  Skirmishing further forward in smaller groups?  Longer ranged support weapons?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 May 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Seen - does that make the maintenance load on "the system" more than zero, but managable?



I would think so.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 May 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ....
> Is it time for the infanteers to become more Special again?  Increased dispersion?  Skirmishing further forward in smaller groups?  *Longer ranged support weapons?*



Maybe?



> SOCOM looks to buy 5,000 lightweight machine guns in .338
> 5/15/17 | by Chris Eger
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.guns.com/2017/05/15/socom-looks-to-buy-5000-lightweight-machine-guns-in-338/

On the humourous side of things - Just about the time that they have figured out how to make the C6 lighter they now want to increase the weight of shot and create a new weapon that weighs as much as the old C6.  Your knees just can't get a break.


----------



## Mike5 (17 May 2017)

How heavy are intra-team radios?  Are there currently any viable options for solar-charging batteries?

It's crazy how much weight we expect a soldier to carry with the 522s.


----------



## LightFighter (17 May 2017)

Mike5 said:
			
		

> How heavy are intra-team radios?



An MBITR AN/PRC-148(Im assuming this is what they are referring to) weighs 1.9 lbs(with battery) according to the Thales site.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Jun 2017)

Interesting video from Gunner 2 MarDiv arguing that the suppressor does not detract from muzzle velocity and thus range and lethality - and that "you are going to get one".

https://youtu.be/LeWL3EL1ymM

He also demontrates the ancillary benefits of the suppressor.

https://youtu.be/eGS_K_d-c_c


----------



## Sig_Des (23 Jun 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Interesting video from Gunner 2 MarDiv arguing that the suppressor does not detract from muzzle velocity and thus range and lethality - and that "you are going to get one".
> 
> https://youtu.be/LeWL3EL1ymM
> 
> ...



From Soldier Systems:



> No, The USMC Isn’t Adopting Suppressors For Everyone
> Despite stories all over the Internet about a Marine Corps deployment to Norway where every weapon is suppressed, the service isn’t adopting suppressors across the board. It is part of a Marine Corps Warfighting Lab experiment. Nothing has changed from the update we gave you two weeks ago.
> 
> On another note, Mr Woodburn was asked during a Q&A period about when we should expect the test report for last year’s suppressor evaluation. He said that it should be ready by Fall but that the Marine Corps’ suppressor priority was for its Medium Machine Guns. Scuttlebutt suggests that the Marines noted a decrease in range during the evaluation when used with the M4 and M27. Furthermore, Mr Woodburn mentioned that the Marines are interested in finding a suppressor that is compatible with the M27, which could be construed as further evidence of the Marine Corps’ intent to field more M27s. Or, it could mean that the IAR would be next in line after the suppression of the medium machinegun fleet.
> ...



http://soldiersystems.net/2017/05/12/no-the-usmc-isnt-adopting-suppressors-for-everyone/


----------



## Tuukka (22 Aug 2017)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Cleaning is not much different than the rest of the rifle. Take it apart and clean it. The bigger problem is the abnormal wear on the baffles due to high heat and pressure deterioration. It doesn't take many rounds before the internals require replacement. Hence the reason they are not used in SAWs and Pigs. They can be used in automatic small arms (think UZI, Sten, M16, etc).



Actually, suppressors can be used on belt fed weapons also. They just need to be durable enough and have other features designed into them that make them more suitable for belt fed use.








I have not posted here in while, but always on the lookout to comment on suppressor use, what they do and what they dont do.

Even though suppressors have been used quite widely in many countries, both in civilian and in MIL/LE use, some misinformation still exists about them, although a lot of education has been made globally and thei info about them is lightyears ahead what it was 10-15 years ago.


PS. Those .50 cal suppressors on the McMillans there are built by us  

Best Regards!

Tuukka Jokinen
Sales and Marketing Manager
Ase Utra sound suppressors


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Sep 2018)

Not USMC, but relevant.

 http://video.foxnews.com/v/5834509242001/?playlist_id=86861&cmpid=NL_SciTech#sp=show-clips (video at link)

*Suppressor upgrade to make US Special Ops even more deadly*
Sep. 13, 2018 - 3:42 - Defense Specialist Allison Barrie on how the United States' elite Special Operations warriors are set to become even more deadly when upgraded cutting-edge suppressor become a new addition to their arsenal.


----------

