User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Good use of funds

  1. #1
    Points: 30,501, Level: 42
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Docthehun's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    210303
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    6,881
    Points
    30,501
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    12,998
    Thanked 4,497x in 2,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Good use of funds

    No price given, but worth every life it may save.

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/marine-co...211125673.html

  2. #2
    Original Ranter
    Points: 859,122, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 90.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialCreated Album picturesOverdrive50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Awards:
    Posting Award
    Peter1469's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    496581
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NOVA
    Posts
    241,700
    Points
    859,122
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    153,223
    Thanked 147,591x in 94,420 Posts
    Mentioned
    2552 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have been following this with interest. When I was infantry doctrine was no suppressors (other than for snipers) because the volume of fire was considered a combat multiplier.

    I understand now the Army wants suppressors for their light and medium machine guns- probably because they tend to draw a lot of enemy fire in an effort to kill them because of the damage they do. I don't think the Army is using suppressors for the issue infantry rifle. Your article indicates the Marines are going that route.
    ΜOΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ


  3. #3
    Points: 30,501, Level: 42
    Level completed: 61%, Points required for next Level: 549
    Overall activity: 0%
    Achievements:
    Recommendation Second ClassSocial50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    Docthehun's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    210303
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    6,881
    Points
    30,501
    Level
    42
    Thanks Given
    12,998
    Thanked 4,497x in 2,935 Posts
    Mentioned
    131 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    I have been following this with interest. When I was infantry doctrine was no suppressors (other than for snipers) because the volume of fire was considered a combat multiplier.

    I understand now the Army wants suppressors for their light and medium machine guns- probably because they tend to draw a lot of enemy fire in an effort to kill them because of the damage they do. I don't think the Army is using suppressors for the issue infantry rifle. Your article indicates the Marines are going that route.
    There's a couple of downsides. Those "cans" get real hot, real fast. Then you've got that blow back gas headed back at you. They're hard on gun parts and frequent cleaning is a must. Still, they wouldn't be going this route if they didn't feel the positives outweighed the negatives. A couple of other considerations. They change the balance of the gun, have to be aligned and has an effect on night vision googles.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Docthehun For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (01-03-2021)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts