A silencer does not make a marksman silent, but it does make him invisible
US Army looking to get sound suppressors for the troops. They found the AAC Blackout good at minimizing flash. But a sound suppressor would work much better. Honestly, if they were standard issue, it would be a good thing.
February 8th, 2011 at 10:54 am
It might not be; the extra level of fouling from a suppressor is potentially a big deal in a combat situation where you can’t necessarily break down your gun every night.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:27 am
Also anything running full auto is going to have a lot more problems with heat retention from the silencer.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Soooo, if its standard issue for the troops, then that means suppressors are legitimate militia equipment and should be easy to acquire for civilians. Lets use the left’s logic against them!
February 8th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Why not make the military go semi-auto, and issue suppressors to every soldier?
Suppressors are a hearing-safety device and will go a long way to protecting our soldier’s hearing while making them more difficult to find.
February 8th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Maybe they are tired of soldiers getting disability for combat related deafness.
February 8th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Anyone else thinking a modernized version of the XM177 moderator/flash suppressor?
February 8th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
“Why not make the military go semi-auto”
They can do that now. It’s called a selector switch for a reason. Why not let them make that selection for themselves?
February 8th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I like the idea for saving hearing and stealthiness, but there’s the downsides: weight, longer effective barrel length, MUCH more fouling, overgasing.
February 10th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Al Paulson, author of the authoritative “Silencer History and Performance” books did a talk at the AAC Silencer Shoot about three years ago where he reviewed experiments that the Army had done with poor shooters who could not qualify who were given an attempt to qualify with suppressors. The results were dramatically improved scores the first time suppressors were used, and higher than average scores from soldiers who could not qualify normally. He estimated that the reduced number of rounds that would be needed for purposes of qualification would save the Army millions of dollars annually, as well as improve accuracy and confidence of our fighting men and women. Not to mention, the obvious factors of reduced incidents of hearing loss and the numerous tactical advantages.
February 13th, 2011 at 2:41 am
UM, the latest model suppressors canbe some wonderful things. I used to poo-poo the idea of giving PVT SNuffy a suppressor, until I looked at some of the welded baffle can designs Finnish CIVILIANS were making and using.
When they fired a full belt from an RPD equipped with a suppressor that cost about $100 to make, no bobbles,and teh gun didn’t instantly melt into a puddle of steel with charcoal floating on top like marshmellows, I became a believer.
Now, you have to move the bayonet lug, so the bayonet isn’t bearing on teh suppressor at all (if it was even skinny enough to fit the bayonet ring around). I’m thinking a Picatinny mounted bayonet lug should work OK, and if teamed with a free floating barrel, would have zero effect on accuracy.