Optimal Role of Suppressors in Combat?

[Belmont31R]

Theres numerous articles out there about the USMC wanting to go 100% suppressor for combat troops. The hard part is the cost or it would have been done a long time ago. Its the military so its another sensitive item that has to be accounted for, serviced, replaced, etc. An NT4 or other can that could be combat effective costs more than the host gun and would add up to issue to one to every combat arms unit.

[Buncheong]

A 10.3” gun with a 6.2” 17oz suppressor will be a few ounces heavier in any almost any handguard and barrel profile configuration compared to a “SOCOM” barreled 14.5” gun unsuppressed. The only configuration it will weigh less in is 10.3” gov with MLOK G rail vs 14.5” “SOCOM” with DD RIS II. It will only be an inch shorter. It will have one extra accountable item for Pvt Snuffy, J. to lose or damage. The Mk18 will also have decreased effective range and lethality. There will be burns to offset the drop in hearing loss.

Muzzle flash difference between them is a wash, and there are WAAAAAY more cost effective ways to reduce flash.

A 12.5” with a 5” can would close the gap a little with the 14.5”, but would probably exhibit more flash than either previous example with NVDs. However, it would double as a nice “SMG” for POGs with no can attached.

SOF will continue to SOF, and I’m very much on board with suppressors, but I doubt the Army is going to equip every Soldier with a can in my lifetime, unless this next gen whatever project takes hold. Even then, it will take a decade or more to take hold in the entire Army. I can see the potential for the Army or MC equipping every rifleman with one, but its an expensive proposition.


ETA: y’all have already hashed out some good benefits for communication, and situational awareness, which is why I’m playing the devil’s advocate here.

A very thought-provoking post ^ thanks for this ...

[hotrodder636]

I think there are benefits to all soldiers having a can. Production methodology and cost reduction is what will be the limiting factor due to budget. If the suppressor industry can come up with a manufacturing method using Stellite and other abrasion resistant materials that is simple and cost effective...that is where we will see the change.

Problem is, I work in an industry that has been using Stellite for decades...and parts are STILL expensive.

[t1tan]

I think there are benefits to all soldiers having a can. Production methodology and cost reduction is what will be the limiting factor due to budget. If the suppressor industry can come up with a manufacturing method using Stellite and other abrasion resistant materials that is simple and cost effective...that is where we will see the change.

Problem is, I work in an industry that has been using Stellite for decades...and parts are STILL expensive.

Material needs really depend on the caliber and firing schedule, there's not really a need for stellite or other "exotic" materials for 5.56. A cost effective well designed stainless steel can could do well enough, high strength at high temps and can be made as light as titanium cans of similar design.

[BallisticHarmony]

Material needs really depend on the caliber and firing schedule, there's not really a need for stellite or other "exotic" materials for 5.56. A cost effective well designed stainless steel can could do well enough, high strength at high temps and can be made as light as titanium cans of similar design.

The Energetic Arms VOX comes to mind. If anything can take a beating without coatings, it’s that beast.

[MegademiC]

The Energetic Arms VOX comes to mind. If anything can take a beating without coatings, it’s that beast.

I plan on getting one and it looks awesome on paper, but has anyone actually done high-volume FA testing to see how the material resists erosion? I havent seen any and would be curious.

[t1tan]

The Energetic Arms VOX comes to mind. If anything can take a beating without coatings, it’s that beast.

I’ve been following the new Rex Silentium 17-4 cans as well as waiting on the new stainless Q cans, all seem promising.

[Defaultmp3]

The mirage from a suppressor while under high rates of fire is something to consider for anything like a DMR; in a class, Chuck Pressburg spoke about how in a sustained fight, the suppressor can hurt more than it helps, as signature reduction is relatively moot, while the mirage can reduce your effective range significantly. Obviously, this is a somewhat niche role, and the communications/hearing protection aspect still remains in place.

[MegademiC]

I have not used comms with ear pro, does it negate the benefits of silencer sound reduction from a communication standpoint or is a silencer still better?

I would think a silencer is best for situational awareness, but my question is only from a communication-only standpoint.

[1168]

I have not used comms with ear pro, does it negate the benefits of silencer sound reduction from a communication standpoint or is a silencer still better?

I would think a silencer is best for situational awareness, but my question is only from a communication-only standpoint.

Silencer is still good to have with full time comms/ears.