USMC Experimenting by Suppressing an Entire Battalion

If you feel you absolutely must talk about cars, morality, or anything else not related to the F-16, do it here.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2635
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post28 Nov 2016, 22:53

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... rs-rifles/

Any thoughts on if this will be a net improvement for the USMC XanderCrews?

Assuming they follow through and give everybody Suppressors on their weapons.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3282
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post29 Nov 2016, 02:00

I was thinking "it probably saves a lot of hearing damage". The article actually talks about the lower noise level improving communication and individual concentration -- something about loud noises giving the illusion of effectiveness.
Reminds me of the A-10 cult of the gun.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2220
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post29 Nov 2016, 02:55

As long as those opponents aren't covered in body armor resistance to the drastically reduced velocity of the bullets. Next they'll be pushing for musket era bullet weights to regain killing power. After all, if you can function better without noise, won't that also reduce the need for current high capacity magazines?
Online

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3190
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post29 Nov 2016, 04:05

madrat wrote:As long as those opponents aren't covered in body armor resistance to the drastically reduced velocity of the bullets. Next they'll be pushing for musket era bullet weights to regain killing power. After all, if you can function better without noise, won't that also reduce the need for current high capacity magazines?

They won't be using subsonic ammo, so the velocity won't be much different. It'll mainly affect the muzzle report, as there'll still be the supersonic crack, from the projectiles.
Offline
User avatar

pmi

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 06 Oct 2011, 09:12

Unread post10 Aug 2017, 16:26

Necro bump.

madrat wrote:As long as those opponents aren't covered in body armor resistance to the drastically reduced velocity of the bullets.


Modern suppressors do not reduce muzzle velocity. In many cases you will actually see a (small) increase in velocity when using a suppressor.
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8369
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post11 Aug 2017, 20:21

Suppressors also act as a very effective flash hider.

They increase the soldier's effectiveness, especially in urban combat, by allowing them better situational awareness (ie they can hear better and ID/Locate targets better).
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

discofishing

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1421
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2008, 22:15
  • Location: USA

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 00:10

madrat wrote:As long as those opponents aren't covered in body armor resistance to the drastically reduced velocity of the bullets. Next they'll be pushing for musket era bullet weights to regain killing power. After all, if you can function better without noise, won't that also reduce the need for current high capacity magazines?


Uh, no! Suppressors do not drastically reduce velocity. If anything, the reduced recoil will make the average rifleman have a little bit better shot groups at range. The only down side is the heat waves coming of the cans and the weight/length increase.
Offline

citanon

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 437
  • Joined: 01 Jul 2015, 21:42

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 00:19

discofishing wrote:
madrat wrote:As long as those opponents aren't covered in body armor resistance to the drastically reduced velocity of the bullets. Next they'll be pushing for musket era bullet weights to regain killing power. After all, if you can function better without noise, won't that also reduce the need for current high capacity magazines?


Uh, no! Suppressors do not drastically reduce velocity. If anything, the reduced recoil will make the average rifleman have a little bit better shot groups at range. The only down side is the heat waves coming of the cans and the weight/length increase.


And the smoke coming back in your face.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5908
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 20:24

Choose Crews
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 251
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 22:54

Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2220
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post22 Oct 2017, 23:29

Everything that I learned about suppressors just got changed. Very cool. Would still love to see them get multi colored laser pointers to help them in close, too.

They could literally sweep buildings without waking up the whole neighborhood.
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 251
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post23 Oct 2017, 00:13

madrat wrote:They could literally sweep buildings without waking up the whole neighborhood.


The supersonic rounds are still very noisy if you're near their travel path : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAQqba-2Bus

And if you're in the vicinity of the firearm, you're in the 130-140dB range, so just hearing-safe.

So not waking up the whole neighborhood would depend on the situation I'd say.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post10 Jan 2018, 01:08

So it looks like the USMC finally did it. Good for them for getting a new weapon but I don't think it was the best decision (from an economical and practical sense...)

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018 ... -overhaul/
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5908
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post10 Jan 2018, 04:48

charlielima223 wrote:So it looks like the USMC finally did it. Good for them for getting a new weapon but I don't think it was the best decision (from an economical and practical sense...)

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018 ... -overhaul/


The Marines’ new 5th-generation fighter, the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, costs roughly $100 million per copy, Neller told troops at one of a dozen town hall-style addresses he gave in the span of seven days in late December.

“I could kit out every grunt in the Marine Corps with the coolest s*** head-to-toe for $100 million,” he said. “And I intend to do that.”


ZoMG!! Neller hates teh F-35bravos!!1! Cansoolashun is imminmmient




Code: Select all
Previously on TFB, we discussed that, although the M27 is an effective rifle with better capabilities than the current M4 Carbine used by the USMC, it falls short of being the ideal choice for the Corps. If the USMC does decide to replace the M4 with the M27, then it would be a major missed opportunity if they simply purchased more of the weapons first fielded in 2011. Instead, the Corps should seek out an “M27A1” variant which would improve on the existing weapon. Such a rifle would ideally incorporate a variety of improvements, such as:


I know marines, and I know armorers, and gunsmiths, and i know HK qualified people on the HK416 family and I know some men who are all of the above. And they say that article about the M27 they link to there, and being up yet again is utter bullshit. And I'm inclined to believe them
Choose Crews
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 988
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post10 Jan 2018, 22:35

*stands on soap box*

You know what... I'm just going to poo poo all over the USMC's decision for a wide adoption of the M27.

Honestly I just think its the USMC just trying to be special again. They are the smallest "branch" within the armed services (in quotes because they're part of the USN so technically there are 3 branches of the US Military, NOT 4). Everyone else is sticking with either M16s already in service or moving towards M4s and M4A1s. Why the USMC wants to go down another path is beyond me. First the USMC went with digital camouflage (with great success however. Though what was wrong with everyone using the same pattern and basic uniform layout?) then everyone wanted to go down that path (damn trend setters. Though now I think the US Army has the better pattern and overall better battle uniform). Then they wanted to hold onto their Mk.318 while most everyone moving towards the M855A1 (even the SOCOM was moving away from the Mk.318 to the M855A1). No we have their M27...

First they tried to pitch it as an alternative to the M249. Which is ridiculous if anyone understands the concept of sustained suppressing fire as well as fire and maneuver. Then they pitched it as a DMR. Which is another dumb idea because there is already another DMR in use (though no longer being procured) that is also in 5.56 and is purpose built for the job; the Mk.12 SPR. They've been trying to sneak this through the back door for years. Now they just said "F it!" and want to introduce it as a service wide weapon. I stated how this was a bad idea both economically and practically IMO.

Its not economical because the M27 cost 3k per unit. An M4A1 costs roughly $700 for the US Military. The Mk.12 SPR is roughly 2000-2200 (at least civilian builds made by Daniel Defense and Centurion Arms). Another reason why I think this is not economical and as well as practical is because the M27 has proprietary parts. The last thing you want in a large force is to have a weapon system with proprietary parts. Smaller units in SOCOM however can get away with this because they are a smaller force and have their own budget (they spend their funds more wisely). Proprietary parts means more long term costs when it comes to service life. This would also be more difficult down the road if they want to improve the M27 because there isn't that many CoS parts for it.

The US Army (despite its numerous and awful stumbles) had the better decision to upgrade current M4s in service to the M4A1 standard rather then going for a completely new weapon (which they tried and failed because nothing out there substantially outperforms the M4A1. They unfortunately also cancelled their M4A1+ program... however something interesting popped up. http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -carbines/). USMC was already procuring the M4s, why not modify it to the M4A1 standard the US Army uses? USASOC is looking to improve their M4A1 SOPMODs through a new Upper Receiver Group that uses readily available CoS parts (US Military as a whole would be wise simply to let USASOC do their thing with it then piggy-back off of it later on). One of the improvements that stand out is going from a carbine length gas tube to a mid length gas tube in their carbines. This is a great idea because the open civilian market has LOTS of mid length gas systems for the AR-15 and by all accounts improves the overall reliability of the rifle/carbine. This cannot be said of the M27s H&K short stroke gas piston system. If one looks at all the short stroke gas piston systems for AR-15s on the market, they would fine that no two are truly alike nor can you swap out parts. The US Military can take existing M4/M4A1s and with existing and more readily available CoS parts upgrade those weapons and it would still be cheaper then the M27 and would be a improvement over what is currently issued.

Now we come to another wrinkle for the M27, the adoption of the M855A1. The USMC finally adopted the M855A1 after the US Army has been using it since 2010 (perhaps they just wanted to burn through their stock of Mk.318...). This presented a challenge for the M27. The M855A1 was tailored more for the M4 and M4A1 as well as the DI gas system that they use. The M855A1 showed that the M27 had feeding problems with the round (gen 2 and 3 PMags fixed that. M4A1s also had issues with the M855A1, again newer magazines fixed that) and that the M855A1 actually decreased its service life further then that of the M4A1 and M16s. Because the M27 is essentially an over gassed system, this creates more strain on parts. Matter the fact US Army testing showed that the M4A1 had the least amount of class 3 stoppages/malfunctions over piston driven counterparts using the M855A1. Originally the M855A1 had a chamber pressure as high as 62k PSI. From other people who are still in and have a finger on the pulse say they reigned it down to 55k psi. That is still a higher chamber pressure then the original M855 but lower then original M855A1 specs. This higher chamber pressure with the over gassed system of the M27 means a lower service when compared to the M4A1.

This isn't like the USMC procuring the F-35B which will significantly change their doctrine and how they fight when it comes to air power. The M27 offers no significant benefit over current M4A1s or M4A1s with CoS upgrades/parts. M27 will not have a significant effect on how the Marines fight their current and future conflicts but mainly just a restructure of their fire teams. Also a loaded M27 is roughly 2lbs heavier then a loaded M4A1. 2lbs and $3K for something that isn't significantly better then what is currently being used now.

To sum up...
> M27 will likely have a higher service life cost
> M27 has no major parts commonality to what is out there in the civilian market means limited path of future upgrades
> M27 when coupled with M855A1 will have a lower service life cycle
> M27 IS NOT WORTH THE COST
Next

Return to Off-topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests