Marine Batallion goes silent....

11-30-2016, 05:50

Any opinions on this move?

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...battalion.html

35NCO · 11-30-2016, 07:02

Battlefield total signature reduction is a great idea.

BUT, can we apply the appropriate engineering to the devices and weapon systems to make it operationally and logistically efficient?

They could work to some extent with the right device on the right calibers. Other references in the article to specific weapon applications are asking for a lot. There are many very specific baffle geometries that would be required and tailored to each weapon.

They need the volume of the vessel to get the lower db's. Which leads to much bigger devices even today. However, currently shrinking as we start to understand flow/choked flow and CFD in relation to volume and turbulent flow.

A good start would be a new device that is similar in sense to the Colt Moderators. Not really for total sound mitigation, but a device that has zero thermal and flash signature. You could still get 10db reduction from a much smaller device. While not hearing safe, it would certainly be helpful and of interest to battlefield signature reduction, accomplishing its mission. This would include backpressure problems, cost problems, application problems to specific weapon design, and rapid fielding.

...Then again, integrating such a thing to all military weapons design makes a hell of a lot more sense.

If they do not work careful within the boundaries of the native wavelength of the gas pressure dwell of DI weapon systems the health trade offs are going to be more harmful chemical residuals in the Soldiers faces and possible further battlefield communication and vision obscurity in relations to not controlling the backpressure problems. Sure they could hear better, but what about when they cant breath anymore or develop further eye and or health problems due to the devices application?

Lots to consider. Its a nice idea, but must be approached very carefully.

Golf1echo · 11-30-2016, 07:05

More like an expansion of what some Marine units have already been using.

CAARNG 68W · 11-30-2016, 07:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golf1echo

More like an expansion of what some Marine units have already been using.

That doesn't look like MARPAT

Golf1echo · 11-30-2016, 12:37

No, it's Multicam

JJ_BPK · 11-30-2016, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35NCO

Battlefield total signature reduction is a great idea.

BUT, can we apply the appropriate engineering to the devices and weapon systems to make it operationally and logistically efficient?
.

Does the M16/M4 gas system limit design and combat usefulness with a can?

In that there is already to much particulate pushed back into the receiver and shooter's face. Wouldn't the additional back pressure from a can cause increased maintenance and secondary FTF/FTE/FTC problems?

It's one thing to blow off a box or two at the range,,
but WTSHTF,, and your life depends on a dump of 10-20-30 mags??

We use to have Mad-Minutes on the firebase at random hours of the night. I would stand behind on of my bunkers and watch several squads. In one minute most guys could dump 12-14 mags. A lot of red barrels.

Every nite there would seem to be one rifle per bunker that would jam. And that was after a daily diesel tub soak and bath on every weapon. Granted, 45 yrs ago the M16 we had, is not today's.

35NCO · 11-30-2016, 14:36

Yes. DI weapon systems are the worst weapon systems to suppress in modern weapon design and suppressor design.

The weapon has a natural balance of careful reciprocating mass, kinetic energies, and very specific dwell times. All tailored to various barrel lengths and gas port sizes. Some cartridges can affect the overall pressures as well. The issue is that the suppressors changes the dwell time which results in increased back pressure porting an increased quantity of carbon back into the action. This also increasing cyclic speed with the changed duration pressure curve. The increased back pressure with certain blast baffle geometries is so intensive it can be blinding and difficult to deal with on rapid fire.

This dramatically also increases the need for cleaning the weapon. It gets overwhelmed with carbon quite quickly. Worn out M4s with fairly loose, to border line tolerance can function longer but newer weapons tend to not deal with it well. Running dryer on oils and some coatings help here (NP3), but it does not address fixing why it happens in the first place.

For it to work with a Stoner designed DI weapon efficiently, it must have little to no back pressure. There are significant engineering problems with that. It is not as simple as the command may like brand X so all brand X suppressors that are 7.62 go on all the various 7.62 weapons. This is also true for barrel lengths with the various gas port sizes and buffer mass differences. Ideally each weapon would have a unique suppressor device.

Piston guns are a little better, but you are trading some problems for another.

There are also harmonic stability problems in relation to bore with suppressor application. We are starting to free float more weapons today, which is great, but the harmonic stability can be influenced by increased mass and dwell imposed by a suppressor. Especially devices with a dissimilar resonance that are not sympathetic to the weapons natural oscillations. So there is durability and accuracy problems associated there for long term barrel life and consistency. Especially in hard use and especially in regards to frequent follow on shots.

As far as mad minutes go, that is a tremendous problem with this proposal. There needs to be a vast relook at how we apply metallurgical science to the first few baffles in the stacks. Erosion will be quick in conventional infantry forces of these devices as in the optempo of early IRQ and AFG. Very few devices can hold up to the consistent abuse you reference of 12-14 magazines continuously.

Again, it would be better as some sort of integral device that is similar to barrel life that PFC Snuffy can’t lose or mess up.

We can use off the shelf stuff now. But we will have what I describe here. It is going to be very expensive with massive tradeoffs that may not make it appropriate at this time. Or perhaps for only short duration fieldlings with very specific applications to weapons that have been tested with the device by various reputable weapons engineers.

**Peregrino** · 11-30-2016, 16:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35NCO

Yes. DI weapon systems are the worst weapon systems to suppress in modern weapon design and suppressor design.

The weapon has a natural balance of careful mass, kinetic energies, and very specific dwell times. All tailored to various barrel lengths and gas port sizes. Some cartridges can effect the overall pressures as well. The issue is that the suppressors screws with the dwell time which results in increased back pressure porting a bunch of carbon back into the action and increasing cyclic speed. The pressure with certain blast baffle geometries is so intensive it can be blinding and difficult to deal with on rapid fire.

This dramatically increases the need for cleaning the weapon. It gets pretty gummy real quick with carbon. Worn out m4s with fairly loose border line tolerance can function longer but newer weapons tend to not deal with it well. Running dryer on oils and some coatings help here, but it does not address just fixing why it happens in the first place.

For it to work with a stoner designed weapon efficiently it must have little to no back pressure. There are significant engineering problems with that. Its not as simple as the command may like brand X so all brand X suppressors that are 7.62 go on all the different 7.62 weapons. This is also true for barrel lengths with the various gas port sizes and buffer mass differences. Ideally each weapon would have a unique suppressor device.

Piston guns are a little better, but you are trading some problems for another.

There are also harmonic stabilities in relation to bore. We are starting to free float more weapons today, which is great, but the harmonic stability can be influenced by increased mass and dwell imposed by a suppressor. Especially devices with a dissimilar resonance that is not sympathetic to the weapons natural oscillations. So there is durability and accuracy problems associated there for long term barrel life and consistency. Especially in hard use and especially in regards to frequent follow on shots.

As far as made minutes go, that is a tremendous problem with this proposal. There needs to be a vast relook at how we apply metallurgical science to the first few baffles in the stacks. Erosion will be quick in conventional infantry forces of these devices as in the OPTEMPO of early Iraq and AFG.

Again, it would be better as some sort of integral device that is similar to barrel life that PFC Snuffy cant lose or mess up.

We can use off the shelf stuff now. But we will have what I describe here. It is going to be very expensive with massive trade-offs that may not make it appropriate at this time. Or perhaps for only short duration fieldings with very specific applications to weapons that have been tested with the device by various reputable weapons engineers.

With a few spelling and grammar corrections this would almost rise to the level of a worthy contribution to TR's carbine primer thread.

Very few amateur gun plumbers have any understanding of how delicate the balance of forces are in a reliable AR - or the compromises that must be entered into when changing components/ammo while attempting to personalize one. The Marines do a better than average job WRT addressing the needs of the rifleman but I think over the long run even they will have problems with the 2nd and 3rd order effects of this initiative.

35NCO · 12-01-2016, 00:54

Sorry about that. That's what I get for slamming it out on my cell phone. Cleaned it up a bit. And thank you.

miclo18d · 12-01-2016, 01:20

If mymemory serves, I recall a device in the Rgr Regts arms room that was not a silencer, but a "suppressor" it was roughly the shape of a silencer but as I recall didn't have baffles. It did reduce muzzle flash and quieted the weapon a bit. Seems like a compromise device might be a better choice.

Looked like this (sorry for the poor quality)

frostfire · 12-02-2016, 18:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by 35NCO

Yes. DI weapon systems are the worst weapon systems to suppress in modern weapon design and suppressor design.

The weapon has a natural balance of careful reciprocating mass, kinetic energies, and very specific dwell times. All tailored to various barrel lengths and gas port sizes. Some cartridges can affect the overall pressures as well. The issue is that the suppressors changes the dwell time which results in increased back pressure porting an increased quantity of carbon back into the action. This also increasing cyclic speed with the changed duration pressure curve. The increased back pressure with certain blast baffle geometries is so intensive it can be blinding and difficult to deal with on rapid fire.

This dramatically also increases the need for cleaning the weapon. It gets overwhelmed with carbon quite quickly. Worn out M4s with fairly loose, to border line tolerance can function longer but newer weapons tend to not deal with it well. Running dryer on oils and some coatings help here (NP3), but it does not address fixing why it happens in the first place.

For it to work with a Stoner designed DI weapon efficiently, it must have little to no back pressure. There are significant engineering problems with that. It is not as simple as the command may like brand X so all brand X suppressors that are 7.62 go on all the various 7.62 weapons. This is also true for barrel lengths with the various gas port sizes and buffer mass differences. Ideally each weapon would have a unique suppressor device.

Piston guns are a little better, but you are trading some problems for another.

There are also harmonic stability problems in relation to bore with suppressor application. We are starting to free float more weapons today, which is great, but the harmonic stability can be influenced by increased mass and dwell imposed by a suppressor. Especially devices with a dissimilar resonance that are not sympathetic to the weapons natural oscillations. So there is durability and accuracy problems associated there for long term barrel life and consistency. Especially in hard use and especially in regards to frequent follow on shots.

As far as mad minutes go, that is a tremendous problem with this proposal. There needs to be a vast relook at how we apply metallurgical science to the first few baffles in the stacks. Erosion will be quick in conventional infantry forces of these devices as in the optempo of early IRQ and AFG. Very few devices can hold up to the consistent abuse you reference of 12-14 magazines continuously.

Again, it would be better as some sort of integral device that is similar to barrel life that PFC Snuffy can’t lose or mess up.

We can use off the shelf stuff now. But we will have what I describe here. It is going to be very expensive with massive tradeoffs that may not make it appropriate at this time. Or perhaps for only short duration fieldlings with very specific applications to weapons that have been tested with the device by various reputable weapons engineers.

I bow before superior knowledge. Have you ever gotten to use the knowledge from the Barrett armorer class we took?

I think the Marines would be very surprised just how much cleaning they have to put up with. Some of the returning QP from a certain continent showed me the gunk so bad he had to scrape it w knife......also more deltoid and bicep required to shoot aggressive offhand w the muzzle weight, but I guess the Marines don't have that problem

35NCO · 12-03-2016, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by miclo18d

....

Looked like this (sorry for the poor quality)

Pretty hard to tell or guess...but for the time period I assume you served and the unit the device was at, I would guess it was a early KAC device. Knight has made many unusual devices over the years. I frequently stumble upon things I never knew he did.

It likely had some baffles in it. However empty tubes do suppress some what. They also would assist in dramatically reducing muzzle flash. For example, the CZ scorpion machine pistol uses a empty can. Seems to work strictly off of volume.

Peregrino, Frostfire,

I have huge respect for the competence of the Marines and Small Arms. I took a small arms course with them awhile back. I was stunned at how competent the SGT/E5 instructors were. They were exceptionally technically proficient, were very professional, and had a number of deployments under their belts. It really blew me away. No disrespect to the rest of the Army, but my thought at the time was the Marine SGTs act as you would expect a Army E7 to act. Thats from my side of the fence though. I am sure other Army MOSs are different. I will also say it caused me to take pause and take a good hard look at myself, as I outranked them...Overall, it was a very good experience. Nothing there left me to believe they cant figure this Suppressor configuration and fielding study out.

JJ_BPK · 05-23-2017, 17:19

I just watch a video of some gunny(Wx) firing an 10.5inch M4 with/without a can. At first I thought it was a USMC training video, but the lower had a right side safety & ball-n-chain logo and it looked like he changes the bolt & carrier before using the can??

It is posted by 2nd Marine Division Combat Camera

@ 1:35 you can see he used the right side saftey
@ 1:45 you can see he install a carrier.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywpF9relVEU

Anybody know if the Marines have also decided to go with short barrels and ported carriers??

I know gamtech has a ported carrier,, and for the price, they are very proud it it.

https://gemtech.com/gemtech-5-56-sup...t-carrier.html

35NCO · 05-24-2017, 16:42

Its a ;

10.5 inch .82 gas port commercial off the shelf MK18 Mod 1 from Daniel Defense. Not .mil assembled.

Aero Precision Lower that looks like he Form 1 SBRed it or a factory SBR. (Model (WTBNSR10) ...Weapons Battalion Senior 10? Nice. Maybe Weapons BN bought AERO SBRs? Seems hard to believe.)

A aftermarket ambi-kit.

A vented Gemtech Bolt carrier assembly and a Gemtech threaded, not fast attach, Trek-T (Titanium) (SN 44875) Suppressor , with a PRI gas buster charging handle.

I am sure MARSOC and Marine Infantry has available to them the same MK18/M4CQBR series weapon systems that the Navy has in its arsenal for SEALs or other types that may use such a weapon in Urban and ship boarding operations.

I am going to bet the weapon in the video belongs to the CW5 as a personal weapon, as well as the Suppressor.

Glad that they are on a suppressor kick, just surprised it is an official Marine video with so many commercial names and products in it? (Lancer, Gemtech, Daniel Defense, Larue, Knights, Magpul, Trijicon... )

Based on the video, it looks like the gas system is balanced by dropping that brass at 3 o clock. However, the amount of gas blowing out that port is not something I would like. It would not help in hiding your position if needed. Likely still not a 100% solution for long term health reasons either. Seems fine for the range I suppose.

Lets talk about that gas system of this weapon.

What makes a MK18 system run amazing with a suppressor is a gas port of about half of the .82 factory size. More like .40-.42 for a suppressor. It will shoot super soft, no gas in the face, and be reliable and eject efficiently all day, everyday, for the everyday range shooter.

So why does the military just not do that? Well it took some research on my part and what I get out of it is because of our weapon requirements for different operational environments. One of the many issues why it takes us so long to adopt any small arm.

What runs and cycles in the desert must also work in the Jungle and also work in the arctic. Even under heavy abuse. Hence the incredibly large factory gas ports on contracted military DI small arms.

With smaller gas ports the weapons have less capability to perform the work from the smaller percentage of volume of the gas port to be reliable in all operational environments in combat conditions.

Adjustable gas blocks would help. But I believe the operational environment is the reason why the DoD demands a one stop solution for a suppressor with no changes to the weapon. I do not think they will get it thinking that way. IMO

All that said. I thought it was a good video proving what he set out to prove. Some more data and explanation of the parts and ammo would have been helpful.

miclo18d · 05-24-2017, 17:03

Am I mistaken? I always thought that a 5.56 round (55 and 62gr) needed upwards of 2700fps to fragment correctly (and somewhere around 2500fps for the 77gr). That guys 10.5 out of the barrel is only 2300fps and people wonder why the 5.56 isn't killing the bad guys.

Did I get it all wrong? Why would you carry that into combat other than to look cool?