Why shouldn't the military issue suppressors to all personnel?

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:27:08 -0400

Given today's technology and improvement with them, is the benefit of stealth and hearing protection not an overall check in the PLUS (+) column for them? RE: Cost, I've seen them range from $250 - $1000+, of course, military procurement departments will probably opt for a $3500 model that is no more effective but you know ...

If not for all personnel how about the 11Bs & 0311s and Scouts ... they're supposed to be sneaky anyways but still.

https://www.facebook.com/FUNKER530/videos/ [login to see] 27384/

Funker530 - Combat Footage

More fact or fiction at Funker530 - Combat FootageA U.S. Marine Corps Gunner disproves a popular suppressor myth to answer some questions that Marines have about the device. Marines will be...

Response by SGT David T. made Mar 30 at 2018 1:33 PM

SGT David T. — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:33:31 -0400

It's all fun and games until Snuffy gets a suppressor lol. "It wasn't me Sergeant" lol
Probably the same reason they shouldn't be issued lightsabers if they are ever invented lol

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Mar 30 at 2018 1:41 PM

SGT Dave Tracy — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:41:39 -0400

I wouldn't call Infantry sneaky. They're a big blunt hammer where stealth isn't the generally the premium.

Response by SPC David Willis made Mar 30 at 2018 1:57 PM

SPC David Willis — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:57:39 -0400

I'm for it but more for the noise aspect. Anything that makes it easier for the team leaders commands to be heard easier I'm all for.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 30 at 2018 1:58 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 13:58:57 -0400

Most important reason, Not needed for all troops. The average patrol is not hiding from anyone, there is no tactical need for a suppressor.
Its added weight to the SM's kit, added length to the rifle
Then you have $$$, which would be better spent on any number of things from improved NVGs for those that drive, fly or patrol on foot to vehicle upgrades or replacement M4 magazines

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Mar 30 at 2018 3:51 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:51:08 -0400

The military buys from whoever gives the biggest kickback, same reason the Souix had better rifles than the 7th Cavalry.

Response by TSgt David L. made Mar 30 at 2018 3:53 PM

TSgt David L. — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 15:53:17 -0400

I definitely support Infantry and JSOC getting cans on their weapons. Not ALL troops need them. The option based on mission profile should be there for many units though.

Response by SSG Will Phillips made Mar 30 at 2018 4:43 PM

SSG Will Phillips — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 16:43:56 -0400

As far as suppressors go, the platoon sniper should have one, as well as the battalion Recon/Scout platoon members. Otherwise it is something else to carry and keep up with. Also ... My suppressor for my civilian Colt M-4 gets EXTREAMLY hot after just a few rounds.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Mar 30 at 2018 7:16 PM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 19:16:10 -0400

This should definitely happen.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2018 7:21 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Mar 2018 19:21:15 -0400

Besides the initial fielding cost, there is an increase maintenance cost because of the additional wear and tear shooting a suppressor places on most rifles unless specifically modified, which the standard M4 is not. There are about 80 differences between the SOF M4A1 that is only partially optimized for firing with a suppressor and the M4A4 which everyone else uses which is not optimized at all.

Response by Cpl Derek Goins made Apr 1 at 2018 10:51 AM

Cpl Derek Goins — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 10:51:22 -0400

Suppressors require regular maintenance and would get wore down quickly with the volume of shooting a regular grunt does. I carried a MK12 in Sangin in 2010 as an 0311. It sported a reflex style suppressor from OPS INC (now out of business).

I will tell you that the suppressor and the scope on the rifle were bullet magnets when the Taliban decided to engage us on patrols. One other thing to note was that the report of the rifle shot with the suppressor attached sounded exactly like incoming fire. More than once my squad leader came over the radio asking if I was shooting or if we were taking fire.

My favorite aspect was the reduced recoil which made it easier to spot my shots at longer distances. Overall though I would have preferred more comfortable body armor or boots if the government was spending cash on new gear. Our 1 SGT chewed our ass for bringing our own Oakley boots and they threatened Marines that their spouse wouldn't get SGLI if they got blown up wearing non issue gear. Cool topic.

Response by Cpl John Barker made Apr 1 at 2018 4:28 PM

Cpl John Barker — Sun, 01 Apr 2018 16:28:29 -0400

Honestly never been a fan of suppressors on the M4; my second pump had an attachment of baby recon on our PB and they let us play with their toys. Completely throws off the balance of the weapon (like a bayonet) not to mention Rickey Recon actually told us they would take their suppressors off when they got in tics because they couldn't as effectively suppress the enemy with them on

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 15 at 2018 7:29 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 15 Oct 2018 19:29:13 -0400

I think they should add a folding bipod to the M4-series weapons and the M16-series weapons. When I was a SAW gunner, I was immediately amazed at how well I could shoot from bipod.

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Aug 14 at 2019 4:58 AM

SGT Donald Croswhite — Wed, 14 Aug 2019 04:58:43 -0400

Yeah, roll up in an MRAP convoy..."everyone got thier suppressors on?"