Marine Corps Wants To Put Suppressors On Rifles
BY Herschel Smith8 years ago
In a series of experiments this year, units from 2nd Marine Division will be silencing every element of an infantry battalion — from M4 rifles to .50 caliber machine guns.
The commanding general of 2nd Marine Division, Maj. Gen. John Love, described these plans during a speech to Marines at the Marine Corps Association Ground Dinner this month near Washington, D.C.
The proof-of-concept tests, he said, included Bravo Company, 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines, which began an Integrated Training Exercise pre-deployment last month at Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms.
“What we’ve found so far is it revolutionizes the way we fight,” Love told Military.com. “It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn’t really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons. Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control and effectively direct those fires.”
Chief Warrant Officer 5 Christian Wade, the division’s gunner, or infantry weapons officer, said the Lima companies in two other battalions — 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines, and 3rd Battalion, 8th Marines — now had silencers, or suppressors, on all their rifles, including the M27 infantry automatic rifles. All units are set to deploy in coming months. The combat engineer platoons that are attached to these units and will deploy with them will also carry suppressed weapons, he said.
Suppressors work by slowing the escape of propellant gases when a gun is fired, which drastically reduces the sound signature. Used by scout snipers and special operations troops to preserve their stealth, the devices are also valuable for their ability to minimize the chaos of battle, enabling not only better communication but also improved situational awareness and accuracy.
“It increases their ability to command and control, to coordinate with each other,” Wade told Military.com. “They shoot better, because they can focus more, and they get more discipline with their fire.”
Readers Joe and Jack sent this to me. I have no difficulty in believing that suppressors have this kind of positive effect on small unit maneuver warfare tactics, techniques and procedures. Anyone shooter knows that you either wear hearing protection, or you prepare for part of your pain to be sustaining the damage to your hearing. I can only imagine attempting to control a small unit in warfare with this kind of noise.
My only caveat with this would be what this does to (1) muzzle velocity, and (2) barrel length. Suppressors reduce muzzle velocity, but I don’t know how much this particular suppressor affects the M193 or M855. Even a little reduction can cause a whole lot of ballistic differences, and that in itself may cause the need for another compensating change to small unit tactics.
Finally, as my former Marine tells me, heavy front end rifles are tiring and Marines looked for ways to reduce front end weight when they can. Reduction in this case can only take the form of reduction of barrel length, which means yet another reduction in muzzle velocity.
Frankly, I see this as a positive move for the Marine Corps, but I’d like to see more data on this before jumping to any conclusions. Wouldn’t you?
On November 24, 2016 at 9:43 am, Horatio Bunce said:
I will try to find my ballistics charts etc , but from what I remember , a non wet suppressor [ or rubber wipes] increased FPS slightly . Accuracy was same or slightly better . But , POI did change slightly . Of course that is 16″ barrel on 5.56 . It may change on 14″ only because of pressure differences but don’t expect much of a difference . Have to remember that the SS109 ammo etc were designed for 20″ barrel so pressures in shorter barrels are different . Gas port tuning can alleviate faster cycling etc as far as I can remember.
As far as weight it would depend on the suppressor . There are some very light weight ones out there that would be negligible as far as felt weight . Especially on an already shorter platform .
I think the benefits outweigh the cons .Especially if the platform was set up to accommodate a suppressor. Just my personal opinion. Wish we had the option when I served .
On November 24, 2016 at 11:56 am, Fred said:
I like the approach. Give the men the weapon, collect feedback and data, and then assess the results. Overall length is what came to mind. Give it to the grunts and let them decide. Better than a power point slide!
On November 24, 2016 at 9:35 pm, joefour said:
Slightly off topic but of interest … I met an old WW II vet who fought in the Pacific theatre at a gun show many years ago … asked him how loud it was on those beach landings … he says, “It was so loud you could yell as loud as you possibly could yell and not hear yourself making a sound.”
Back on topic … an area of concern I see with the use of suppressors on ARs is gas blow-back into the face of the shooter … no first hand experience myself, but have watched a couple of YouTube videos by the Military Arms Channel that brought up the blow-back issue …
On November 25, 2016 at 7:54 am, Josh said:
A Marine described to me his one issue with suppressors: that the extreme noise and chaos was a useful tactic in quickly gaining the upper hand, especially psychologically, because apparently the sound of a line company is terrifying.