to almost everyone

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2020/12/30/marine-corps-to-start-widespread-distribution-of-suppressors/

Makes too much sense.  Hearing protection in battle to me was always a cost-benefit issue.  Can you hear your surroundings enough to detect a threat?  Is hearing protection preventing that?  I'm sure the ringing in your ears from weapon fire makes your hearing as bad, if not worse, than having ear protection.

I'm always amazed how you watch a movie, and the guy who just emptied 2 mags turns and has a whisper-quiet conversation with his partner.  Neither one should be able to hear a whisper for an hour.  Do it enough times, and your hearing is permanently diminished.

So, if I were King of the World, I'd make suppressors STANDARD EQUIPMENT on all firearms, with the option to remove it when needed.  If active shooters saw a benefit from using suppressors, don't you think more would be using them than ZERO?  They aren't that hard to learn to make.

I used my sportears electronic plugs when I was in the service.  They worked well where I could hear better than normal.  I could hear people talking 100 feet away during weapons fire and my ears didn't have that underwater effect like after a loud concert.

The plugs cost $1000 and they'd get lost all the time in the field.  Suppressors are a cheaper option.

Makes too much sense.  Hearing protection in battle to me was always a cost-benefit issue.  Can you hear your surroundings enough to detect a threat?  Is hearing protection preventing that?  I'm sure the ringing in your ears from weapon fire makes your hearing as bad, if not worse, than having ear protection.

I'm always amazed how you watch a movie, and the guy who just emptied 2 mags turns and has a whisper-quiet conversation with his partner.  Neither one should be able to hear a whisper for an hour.  Do it enough times, and your hearing is permanently diminished.

So, if I were King of the World, I'd make suppressors STANDARD EQUIPMENT on all firearms, with the option to remove it when needed.  If active shooters saw a benefit from using suppressors, don't you think more would be using them than ZERO?  They aren't that hard to learn to make.

Exactly. A $1,000 investment is going to save a lot of hearing damager and general shock trauma. Plus a lot of the suppressors end up being measured at the muzzle when some noise escapes at the break of an rifle when the bolt cycles and it can actually be above the safe decibel level there.

My only question would be how it affects the function of the weapon in terms of accuracy and velocity. I know they have to be cleaned once in a while too.

The downside to this though is that it only mitigates damage from the regular firearms, not from grenades, rockets, artillery, etc.

For field use a lanyard could be attached to the electronic ear plugs, like they already have for regular plugs.  That should minimize losing them in the field.  Would also help if the part inserted in the ear was florescent pink in color. That would make them easier to find if dropped on the ground. Like the ATT commercial,  it's not complicated.

how many centuries did it take to figure this out?

For field use a lanyard could be attached to the electronic ear plugs, like they already have for regular plugs.  That should minimize losing them in the field.  Would also help if the part inserted in the ear was florescent pink in color. That would make them easier to find if dropped on the ground. Like the ATT commercial,  it's not complicated.

You would think that, but remember we're talking about marines...

My only question would be how it affects the function of the weapon in terms of accuracy and velocity. I know they have to be cleaned once in a while too.

I'd like to know how they perform on full auto.  That's a lot of heat to dissipate

Everyone forgetting that the unit will be on lockdown until a "lost" one is found in the connex.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

You can make it harder for hearing protection to be lost in the field (or anywhere else), but the issue is that hearing protection takes an active effort to wear before it is effective.  If you aren't wearing them, and suddenly have to engage a threat you weren't anticipating, there's almost no time to insert them.  Alternatively, a suppressor can be left attached, ready to protect the hearing of EVERYONE in proximity -- not just the operator's.

It's not just about your hearing.  Discharging a weapon around civilians, observers and others can damage their hearing as well.

It's not enough to argue the cost in dollars for treating hearing loss.  There's an issue of quality of life:  living with any amount of hearing loss is a lifelong frustration, if not a permanent disability.  It's not as much an impact as say losing an arm, leg, etc., but to have your own issued equipment cause a physical impairment with your senses -- without ever suffering an actual combat wound -- is ridiculous and just plain wrong.  If we CAN prevent or reduce hearing loss in our troops, there should be no debate.

Everyone forgetting that the unit will be on lockdown until a "lost" one is found in the connex.

I'd be more concerned about the added length to the weapon.  They have a short barrel for a reason:  CQB. 

Units on lockdown is nothing new.  You don't deprive a unit of suppressors just because one might (will probably) go missing.  Unless it's still attached to the rifle, it's an expendable item, like most equipment that's issued to troops.

Crazy grunts.....don’t they know that a 45 ACP case works best! Dats what I used on the PBR in Nam.... 

A suppressed M16 is still damn loud unless the suppressor is going to be about 24 inches long. Then you got all the other loud noises, grenades, mortars, artillery etc.  Hearing protection is the best way to go.

A suppressed M16 is still damn loud unless the suppressor is going to be about 24 inches long. Then you got all the other loud noises, grenades, mortars, artillery etc.  Hearing protection is the best way to go.

Why not both?  At least if you don't have time, or forget, to insert ear protection, you have a chance of not causing damage.

Most of the decibels created by a rifle round is the result of breaking the sound barrier.  That's why when a well-suppressed shot is needed, you need to use subsonic ammo -- depending on application and caliber, of course.

So, the suppressor is going to dampen the sound from the gases escaping the barrel, but the sonic "boom" (more like a "crack" sound) will still happen.

I would not be surprised if the Marines decide to change their ammo specs to better complement the suppressors.  Ammo that has cleaner gas emissions will not be as loud.  If I'm correct, a suppressor works in part by keeping the gases that normally escape from the muzzle inside the suppressor tube where it cools to prevent the gases from expanding and making noise.  Some suppressors (I think) even use water and/or ice to help with that process.

I have ZERO experience with suppressors, but I do read a bunch about them each time the subject comes up in the news.  The oil filter and diesel filter suppressors are interesting.

.
 Some suppressors (I think) even use water and/or ice to help with that process.

Coating the steel wool with grease will help cool the gas and lessen the noise.  That is what I read and not experienced, as suppressors are illegal here and none of us does anything illegal.

How much sense do suppressors make on a battlefield? Great question. They probably make way more sense for urban pacification so they can tell where the “bad” guys with noisy guns are, and not disturb the neighborhood as much. It would be much less alarming when the family down the street gets hauled away for globalist re-education camp

How much sense do suppressors make on a battlefield? Great question. They probably make way more sense for urban pacification so they can tell where the “bad” guys with noisy guns are, and not disturb the neighborhood as much. It would be much less alarming when the family down the street gets hauled away for globalist re-education camp

The battlefield of today is much different than other wars.  Most of the hostiles are in buildings or streets.  Ever fire a gun in an indoor range?  Way worse on the hearing than outside.

As I said, the benefit is going to have to be weighed based on the application and environment.  Regardless, I think less sound right next to your head from multiple rifles would be a benefit no matter what.

As for the rhetorical stuff, you're delving into tactics and applications that are not part of the US Marines' mission.

I'd be more concerned about the added length to the weapon.  They have a short barrel for a reason:  CQB. 

The article did say that they were interested in developing an integrated suppressor to reduce the length of the barrel (which is already available commercially).

I haven't shot much with suppressors, but I do recall that in many calibers, the pitch and crack of supersonic rounds are still pretty loud.  Learned that lesson when a friend was shooting his suppressed wildcat rifles.  Even 5.56 isn't that quiet.  Damn movies. . . 

I haven't shot much with suppressors, but I do recall that in many calibers, the pitch and crack of supersonic rounds are still pretty loud.  Learned that lesson when a friend was shooting his suppressed wildcat rifles.  Even 5.56 isn't that quiet.  Damn movies. . . 

From what I've seen in comparison videos, only a suppressed .22LR with subsonic ammo is capable of being nearly silent when fired.  The semi-auto action can actually be louder than the report from the round.  Higher calibers will logically be louder, as will ANY caliber that's not subsonic.

Side note: To my knowledge, there's only one revolver that can effectively use a suppressor: the Russian Nagant M1895.  When fired, the cylinder moves slightly forward to create a seal between the chamber and the barrel.  This prevents gases from escaping out of the sides of the cylinder.  So, when you see someone in a movie using a suppressed revolver, it's complete BS.