SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    Objections to military use of suppressors?
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Objections to military use of suppressors? Login/Join 
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted
I have some familiarity with the use of small arms sound suppressors by military forces, but one thing I’ve never seen discussed is whether there were ever any objections raised about their use in combat. If objections ever were, they have obviously been ineffective (thus far), but I’m still curious if that has ever happened in a serious way.

What say the suppressor experts and historians: Has there ever been a movement to ban use of suppressors in military combat because they made it too easy to kill the enemy without being killed back, or for any other reason that you know?




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The biggest resistance to general use would come from the maintenance and potential for damage.

That said, the most common combat disability in modern times is hearing loss.

I don't know that suppressing a weapon makes it any easier to kill the enemy, particularly on the battlefield.
 
Posts: 4606 | Registered: September 13, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Not easier to kill the enemy, true, but harder for the enemy to kill one back because the source of the fire is harder to identify, or so I understand.

But the susceptibility to their being damaged was evidently the (a?) reason the early suppressors designed for the 1903 (IIRC) rifle were not popular or used much, if at all. Things have obviously changed a lot since then.

Their advantages are obvious, but my question is not about their practical value, but whether anyone has ever objected to their use, as have various groups objected to landmines, cluster bombs, poison gas, etc.




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Go ahead punk, make my day
posted Hide Post
Not to my knowledge.
 
Posts: 45344 | Registered: July 12, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Their advantages are obvious, but my question is not about their practical value, but whether anyone has ever objected to their use, as have various groups objected to landmines, cluster bombs, poison gas, etc.

^^^^^^
Yeah there are always people looking for a cause to protest no matter how stupid the reason.
But I think Rhino is right on this one
 
Posts: 8077 | Location: Stuck at home | Registered: January 02, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I haven't heard any objections in any Law of Landware discussions nor can can I recall seeing anything about them in the Hague agreement.

They are supposed to be BII with some of the newer sniper systems. If it's issued it went through legal review so their use is not banned as far as I know.
 
Posts: 4288 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I've not heard of objections to it.

I will point out I've read anecdotal evidence of the downside being you cannot effectively suppress enemy fighters/positions with only suppressed guns as people dont understand they are being shot at in the moment. No one takes cover, which I could see sucking in quite a few scenarios.
 
Posts: 2252 | Location: Pnw | Registered: March 21, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Anubismp:
I will point out I've read anecdotal evidence of the downside being you cannot effectively suppress enemy fighters/positions with only suppressed guns as people dont understand they are being shot at in the moment.


That’s an interesting point, and raises two questions for me.

The only time I’ve been exposed to intensive fire going past me was in basic training, and that was a very long time ago, so I don’t remember what the sound of the bullets going by was like. It wasn’t remarkable at the time, though. I have read a thing or two here that seem to indicate it can be quite loud. If that’s true, then it shouldn’t matter too much if the sound of the discharge was muted.

But if it does matter in combat, is the increased use of suppressors by our military not taking into account all its consequences (as has happened with weapons systems countless times before)? What are all the pros and cons, and are they being considered?




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Charmingly unsophisticated
Picture of AllenInWV
posted Hide Post
I can recall being downrange several times. Rounds going overhead make kind of a "zzziiiiiIIIPP" noise, and I doubt the use of a suppressor would change that. The report of the weapons WOULD change (I've heard suppressor use seems to make the location of the report different).

I'd think the combination of the "zip" and rounds actually impacting terrain/troops would be what "suppresses" someone. LOL


_______________________________

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
 
Posts: 15643 | Location: Cross Lanes, WV | Registered: February 05, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ride the lightning
Picture of Killer Instincts
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by AllenInWV:
I can recall being downrange several times. Rounds going overhead make kind of a "zzziiiiiIIIPP" noise, and I doubt the use of a suppressor would change that. The report of the weapons WOULD change (I've heard suppressor use seems to make the location of the report different).

I'd think the combination of the "zip" and rounds actually impacting terrain/troops would be what "suppresses" someone. LOL


Correct on all counts. (Combat Infantry)





"I've got a SOCOM Scout and 20 extra mags, and a couple severed heads in my bugout bag" - Sturgill Simpson
 
Posts: 2092 | Location: Northern CO | Registered: March 17, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Any comments on how loud the passing bullets are?

There is one YouTube video of someone measuring the sound levels of 5.56 bullets passing by about 25 yards from the meter. When the shots were fired with a suppressor or from far enough away (200 and 400 yards) that the discharge didn’t affect the readings, the measurements were all about 130 dB. That’s actually pretty loud. According to one chart I saw, that’s equivalent to a stock car race and louder than being at a loud concert. A balloon popping is above 120 dB, and with my devastated hearing I find that painful. Plus, 25 yards is a significant distance. What would it be at a couple of feet above a trench or other cover? On the other hand, that “zip” sound a couple of you describe doesn’t seem like too much.

Comments?




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
Any comments on how loud the passing bullets are?

I attended a Rifles Only course in northeastern Colorado, where a couple days of the course were dedicated to one-mile targets. This was one of the earlier ELR courses on the property, so RO and the land owner were still working things out. They had large berms for the targets at 1400 and 1760 yards. From an orientation standpoint, the 1760 target was at the shooter's 12 o'clock, and the 1400 yard target was at the shooter's 12:30.

We originally planned to use a 338LM from Mile High Shooting, but that fell through. We used Jacob Bynum's personal long-barrel 300WM with some "super secret squirrel" (what Jacob called it) ammo that was left over from an alphabet agency course back in Texas. The 300WM ammo was loaded hot -- really hot -- with SMK 190 bullets. It was the hardest recoiling 300WM I've shot.

We obtained elevation dope easily at 1000, 1200, and 1400 yards, but couldn't hit squat at 1760 yards. I went down range with the land owner, and he hunkered down behind the 1400 yard berm. We would be the spotters to see what was going on, as nobody could see impacts on the 1760 target or berm. When the shooter was ready, Jacob radioed to us that a shot would be fired in 5-10 seconds. BTW, the 300WM used a Thunderbeast suppressor.

The report from the suppressed rifle was really pretty minimal from 1400 yards away, however the supersonic crack from the bullet flying 30-40 yards away was quite loud. The crack was loud enough that we wore ear pro behind the 1400 yard target. We could tolerate a few supersonic cracks here and there without ear pro, but that was it.

FWIW, the 190 SMK bullets were still supersonic at 1400 yards. IIRC Jacob calculated they went subsonic around 1500-1600 yards, at which time they must have tumbled like crazy. We ended up seeing only 2 impacts on the 1760 target, both of which were keyholed. We also found a few bullets on the dirt berm, and they looked clean enough to reload.
 
Posts: 6521 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Charmingly unsophisticated
Picture of AllenInWV
posted Hide Post
I was in a rifle pit, manually raising targets. Just guesstimating, rounds would have been passing directly overhead, maybe 10' above me. Shooters had M16A2s. I don't recall the distance, but it was far enough that there was a noticeable difference between the report and the 'zip'. I also don't recall if I was wearing ear pro.

It wasn't "loud", but it WAS noticeable. Could be other factors to that, but I can't imagine that if I was Ivan Commie on patrol, I would NOT notice the 'zip'. The report from the rifles was noticeable, but not really 'attention getting' if that makes sense. It would easily be lost in the noise of a battlefield, though you'd probably perk up if all were quiet and suddenly off in the distance you hear "pop pop pop". With a suppressed weapon, you'd most likely not have heard it (or recognized it for what it was).

Maybe if there was a lot of other noise going on around me, like my droogs firing on capitalist pigs, the 'zip' might go unnoticed, but I definitely would notice rounds impacting around me.


_______________________________

"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose."
- Jim Elliot
 
Posts: 15643 | Location: Cross Lanes, WV | Registered: February 05, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The only Zip I ever heard from a bullet was a .40-65 BPCR while behind a berm near the target spotting hits and reporting with a walkie talkie.

In the pits at 1000 yards from a Long Range .308 or larger, the shockwave is a sharp Crack calling for ear plugs. Before NRA banned suppressors from F class, the muzzle Pop was audible if nobody else was shooting at the moment and the Crack just as loud, of course.
 
Posts: 2853 | Location: Florence, Alabama, USA | Registered: July 05, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Watson:
NRA banned suppressors from F class


Any idea why?

And I thought I had read about the noise people experienced in target pits, but wasn't sure.




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Anubismp:
I've not heard of objections to it.

I will point out I've read anecdotal evidence of the downside being you cannot effectively suppress enemy fighters/positions with only suppressed guns as people don't understand they are being shot at in the moment. No one takes cover, which I could see sucking in quite a few scenarios.


Sounds like the same guys that complain about the "bing" of the .30-06 M1.

Having had an AK round or two go over my head the "ZIP" is very noticeable and it definitely made me wonder where the closest cover was and who was shooting at me. It also sounds different depending on where you are in relation to the firer. Thus the ability to tell the difference between "incoming" and "outgoing" fire.

I haven't seen sub-sonic ammo issued for the M110, but I have been on the range where they were fired suppressed. There was still plenty of the noise for the enemy to hear and react to.

Also, if the enemy doesn't hear the firing noises and react to them by seeking cover, it makes them easier to kill. A dead or injured enemy is less likely to return fire or maneuver on me and are thusly suppressed.
 
Posts: 4288 | Location: Where ever Uncle Sam Sends Me | Registered: March 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
Do different supersonic bullets produce different sounds? I.e., is it possible to hear the difference between an AK and an M4 by the "crack" of the passing bullet?




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Wait, what?
Picture of gearhounds
posted Hide Post
Another thing to consider- if the shooter is proficient in hitting what they are aiming at, how much of a crack would there be to detect? Would only troops between the shooter and target hear it clearly? Would it be muted significantly beyond the targeted individual? It would be a neat test to observe.

Here is an interesting vid from Trashcanistan that shows the zip with an unsuppressed weapon. Fast forward to about 2:10 and play from there. Eventually you hear a lot of return fire and the zips are still easily detectable.

https://www.bing.com/videos/se...4624B45EE23D3B49FD36

And this training vid that really accentuates the crack. FF to 2:25.
https://www.bing.com/videos/se...3Dds%26form%3DQBVDMH




"Live every day as if it's going to be your last, and one day, you'll be right.”
Malachy McCourt
 
Posts: 11959 | Location: Martinsburg WV | Registered: April 02, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ride the lightning
Picture of Killer Instincts
posted Hide Post
Sigfreund, from my recollection, pretty much all supersonic small arms stuff sounds the same - when it's really close (as in, directed at your physical person), it sounds about like a full auto .22 going off over your head. It is painful at first and gets your attention very quickly. The steel bees/hiss/zip/etc of rounds less immediately close to your face are loud enough to get your attention but not really painful.

I recall several occasions where all I heard was the hiss or crack and saw a muzzle flash, rather than hearing the report. Obviously the bullet flight noise would be heard before the report. Crew served weapons you can generally hear pretty clearly, even over the sound of shitting one's own pants whilst running for cover ( Big Grin ) . AKs not so much. I was also fairly deaf for most of my deployment - no ear pro and lots of outgoing small arms and mortar fire.

Still pretty deaf, actually. Weird.





"I've got a SOCOM Scout and 20 extra mags, and a couple severed heads in my bugout bag" - Sturgill Simpson
 
Posts: 2092 | Location: Northern CO | Registered: March 17, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Killer Instincts:
Still pretty deaf, actually. Weird.


Not weird at all, based on my experiences. I was not in the combat arms, but being inside a bunker with an M60 firing a few feet away and other incidents in the days when hearing protection was virtually unknown left me with strong tinnitus for the past 52 years and the deafness has increased markedly in the past 10 years or so. Hopefully that doesn’t happen to you.

Thanks to you and the other posters with real world experience for your observations—not to mention your service.




“Caesar: Pardon him, Theodotus. He is a barbarian and thinks the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”
— George Bernard Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
 
Posts: 41877 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    Objections to military use of suppressors?

© SIGforum 2020