So /k/ i have a pretty dumb question but cant really seem to get a straight answer for.
Why doesnt the U.S. military use supressors regularly for infantry? I mean yeah i know it doesnt make it noiseless but im sure it would help them stay unlocated if they are a good distance away but more than that wouldnt it help prevent soldiers from getting hearing damage?
>>29331662
because earplugs exist
Because usually you have to use special ammo for suppressors that contains a weaker gunpowder charge. Weaker powder means less range, accuracy, speed, and general lethality. You sacrifice all the good parts of your weapon so you can sneak up on the enemy and eliminate them up close where the aforementioned cons don't really matter that much.
>>29331693
What a crock. Subsonics are only to get rid of the crack, using a can with m885 will still bring the sound to earpro-not-needed levels.
>>29331693
noguns detected
>>29331693
>claiming they use less powder instead of a heavier bullet
>inserts a bunch of Call of Duty downsides of a surpressor
Lurk more, buy some actual guns, come back in about a year, lurk some more, then post.
>>29331690
Thats something i always wondered, do guys o nthe field actually wear hearing protection?
does it impair them in anyway?
>>29331752
Yes to wearing it, not really to impairing them. You kinda get used to how the quieter sounds are, and since everyone is yelling anyway, you get the jist of it with a strong SOP, hand and arm signals, etc. If you're having a long meaningful conversation, it's prolly on the radio, or you're not under direct fire, so you take the earpro out or loosen it enough in an ear to hear more clearly.
As to why the military doesn't give everyone suppressors, no pun intended, but you don't get much bang for your buck. We all know how suppressors actually sound when you're shooting supersonic ammunition, it's still loud as fuck, it's still enough to damage the ears, and the bullet itself is primarily what the enemy is going to be hearing downrange anyway. On the flip side it's another piece of equipment that requires maintenance, needs tracking, and is just generally in the hands of the common solja.
>>29331662
Using suppressors loses effectiveness the more you use them. Maybe not by much though. They're also really expensive and small and just one more in the list of logistics to potentially lose or wrongfully appropriated.
There are actually headphones that you can use that suppresses noise so it won't damage your ears but still enable you to hear and know where you're at and shit.
But suppressors are money. You wouldn't go using it like whenever. Kind of like how fuccboiz don't want dirt on their freshest kicks.
>>29331662
>yfw Soviets issued suppressed guns to recon units since 1942
Never used ear pro in country.
No cans because shit is made by lowest bidder.
Military does not actually care about you.
Cans make DI guns dirty, fast.
>>29331752
Look up electronic "active" earpro. Almost all armed forces of the civilized countries have used those for years.
in short, you hear safe sounds, such as speech, just fine, but the device silences all harmful level noises, like gunshots
>>29331791
Silencers are not expensive to make. You're confusing the relatively low-demand, high-cost civilian market for what the government could procure and deploy. They aren't made of magic. If the U.S. government didn't make acquiring one such a pain in the ass, the cost civilians see would be cut dramatically as the companies who make them can produce larger lots to meet demand and drive down cost.
>>29331880
This. In countries where silencers aren't restricted, a quality rifle one can be had for $150-200.
Would you get derided for using proper ear protection during a battle?
I've worked in a number of loud-as-fuck factories with headphones on and there's usually been no problem communicating between the workers - even though most of them are dumb as a fucking brick.
>>29331735
...motherfucker, you are just as dumb as the other guy. Cartridges for auto-loaders have a maximum length. If the heavier bullet is longer, but the cartridge overall is the same length, where did the rest of the bullet go? Into the case, reducing maximum capacity for propellant.
Additionally, less propellant behind a heavier projectile means less velocity. Less velocity means less range in the sense that the bullet will appear to drop "faster" over the same distance as an identical bullet traveling at a higher velocity. "Lethality" is a buzzword, but there's a reason people tend to stand a better chance surviving a pistol cartridge than an intermediate or rifle cartridge. Hint: it's the velocity those projectiles are traveling. Finally, while silencers generally don't affect a weapon's precision, they will cause a point-of-aim/point-of-impact shift from a bare muzzle.
I hope you've learned something today.
>>29331984
>Tries to teach others
>Thinks heavy bullets are longer
>Thinks a cartridge is packed full with powder
Nice try, now please get out...
>>29331662
They have been issued on multiple occassions to multiple units. But what happens is that they add another 6inches to your rifle so guys whack them into shit. Plus the few ounces get heavy after a few hours of walking around so theu get pulled.
And then the ones that got issued were lowest bidder so they werent very good.
In the end it turns out most units got them, but because most guys didnt use them or like them the majority of units didnt even issue them so most grunts were never aware they were in the inventory.
>>29331880
You can make a suppressor out of a plastic bottle and cotton. But that's not my reasoning. When you issue suppressors to entire battalions, let alone divisions, you have to consider maintenance and accountability. There might be some doubt that the US armed forces will get the suppressors you get in civilian markets, more likely than not we're just going to get issued GI tier ones.
But going back to the value of suppressors, I can guesstimate no more than $199 for each unit. How each items in the armory are taken care of, they get passed through countless individuals. At least 35 persons per year. It may take at least a year until the suppressor becomes ineffective, then what? Call for another batch of mediocre suppressors to get wasted mostly on training and exercises? In smaller situations like in the special forces or in a pinch, a dirt cheap model or even a straight up toilet paper roll, is in fact preferable in those cases. Assuming that OP was referring to suppressors issued to generally those about to be in country, it's not practical enough. Generals wouldn't fight it hard enough for good ones let alone mediocre ones on such a scale.
For special forces units, at least for the US, they're able to purchase their own gear including whatever boots, headphones, or suppressors. Brass and DoD constantly bitch about that, so that's a story for another time.
Most fun/interesting <$200 gun? Other than mosin
>>29331693
Subsonics helps make a gun hearing safe, but a silencer will still help dampen the noise regardless.
>>29331708
>any supersonic .223
>hearing-safe with a silencer
No. I bet you think .22LR is hearing safe without a suppressor too.
>>29331735
You will get different range and point of impact though, unless it's a cartridge that's subsonic in standard loadings like .32ACP or .45ACP
>>29331773
Also it makes a weapon longer.
>>29331662
They're going to need ear protection anyways, as noise can come from enemy fire and exploshunz
>>29332220
Also a can would add bulk and weight and could make a fun unwieldy for extended use and indoor use.
>>29332165
Purchase 2 single shot 12 gauge shotguns. Weld them into a side by side. Will cost around $200 and definitely be an interesting piece. Or else if fellow /k/anuck, get an sks. $200 at most retailers or gun stores
>>29331918
Here in the philippines their entirely unregulated.
our laws are fucked up tho
>>29331984
go pick up a 223 round. (in b4 you don't have any)
hold it to your ear and shake it.
then do as >>29331735 said.
