• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

The Marines Are Issuing Silencers to Troops Around the World

Tinnitus is the most common and most approved va disability. Its rated at 10% which equates to $142 a month for life.
What!
/s
I know all about it, my buddy was in air force and they coached him on the tinnitus test so he could get more money
 
i am not sure about "the chaos of battle", but if i were trying to hunt down an opposing force, the loud sound of rifle fire would get me an accurate azimuth, and a pretty accurate range, to walk in to find them. Silencer...while not perfect, would cut down on that noise

Back in the day in the UK I did some training which involved standing in a slit trench while various small arms calibers were shot a few feet overhead.

A rifle round is supersonic and goes overhead with a distinctive "crack." A suppressor does nothing to quiet that sound, created by the supersonic shock wave.

If you're being shot at by one or two riflemen you can count the time interval between the crack and the following quiet "pop" sound. A little arithmetic gives you an approximate distance to the shooter but I can tell you it's very difficult to determine the direction from that distant "pop" sound. A better way to determine direction is to look for smoke from an over-oiled weapon.

Disclaimer: I have never been in a firefight, my knowledge of this is solely from training.
 
In before grunts start leaving them in the bunker because they weigh 1/2 a pound.


I know the extremes I went to in order to drop weight from my gear. I can't imagine I'm the only one who counts every ounce on my gear when going on long walks in the desert.
 
Does the military register its automatic weapons with the BATFE? Does the military "lose" many weapons in general? The answer to both is NO!

Come on.....get real. Suppressors would be listed as sensitive items just like weapons, optics, comm equipment and the like. One thing the military is very good at is keeping track of sensitive equipment.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Actually what it reinforces is the "In common use" part of the legal argument

How? Give me a single example in the history of ever where "the military has it" has ever been an argument that anything is "in common use" when it comes to civilians having the thing.

If "military using a thing" had any benefit to the "in common use" part for the rest of us, we'd all have select fire rifles and hand grenades.
 
Suppressors would up in the 34 GCA because of fears of poaching when significant parts of the country were hungry and hunted local game to extinction.
 
I know the extremes I went to in order to drop weight from my gear. I can't imagine I'm the only one who counts every ounce on my gear when going on long walks in the desert.
There's a passage in Ernie Pyle's "Here is Your War" where he describes following in the steps of
a US Army unit on their first march into the hinterlands after their landing in Operation Torch.
The roadside was littered with army blankets - ain't nobody in the infantry got the energy
to carry blankets into the freaking desert in the hot sun.

Opinions reverted as soon as the sun went down and everybody froze their niblets off.
 
There's a passage in Ernie Pyle's "Here is Your War" where he describes following in the steps of
a US Army unit on their first march into the hinterlands after their landing in Operation Torch.
The roadside was littered with army blankets - ain't nobody in the infantry got the energy
to carry blankets into the freaking desert in the hot sun.

Opinions reverted as soon as the sun went down and everybody froze their niblets off.

There is no cold like a desert cold.
 
You can thank the 34 GCA on the fact that no one showed up to argue the case as I understand it.....

short barrelled shotguns/rifles are in the NFA bucket because it was argued that they were not in common use in mil during legal arguments in past

suppressors are in same bucket


Kinda....

My understanding is that they wanted to put all handguns under the NFA, and therefore had to ban SBRs and SBSs because they were basically pistols. But then pistols got removed from the NFA, and nobody bothered to remove the SBR and SBR language.

That's why it's legal to have a handgun, but illegal to put a forward vertical grip on it.

The case (I think) you're thinking of is Miller, where he had a SBS, and the state argued that because the military didn't use them (they did) they were not protected under the 2nd amendment. But then Miller died and the case was decided by SCOTUS without him or any defense.

I probably have some details wrong, but that's the gist of it.
 

ATF "Logic" rather than law.....based on 68 GCA vs my reference to 34 GCA

Its all unconstitutional bullshit no matter how you slice it.......

If I could legally own my own frigate with mortors and cannon in 1800 but now am limited by hand wringing legalize?

Aaaarrrrrghhhhh!


Oh, sure... but the only reason SBRs are illegal *AT ALL* (and not just regulated like handguns) is because someone forgot to remove SBRs and SBSs from the NFA when they removed handguns.
 
. As an officer you learn quick......don't lose the Armys shit.
Also, hope you picked a good armorer who can keep track of all the sensitive items properly. ... or at least is resourceful enough to stash spares or barter for replacements of some things when possible.
 
I'm not a believer in the whole "Forgot" approach to legislation/judicial decisions.....

they do lots and lots of dumb shit....some dumber than others......but its all intentional

You’re right, I should have put “forgot” in quotes.
 
Also, hope you picked a good armorer who can keep track of all the sensitive items properly. ... or at least is resourceful enough to stash spares or barter for replacements of some things when possible.
Haha yup. Nothing will end a commanders career faster than a supply clerk or armor that doesn't give a shit.
 
How can being able to better focus on the fight and hear voice commands easier be a bad thing.
Look how long it took the military to adapt the ACOG or red dot sights?
Less cases of hearing loss will save the tax payer in less than a years time of VA disability payments.
This should have been implemented years ago.
Now I know that it won't fit every operational requirement but it will help with focusing on the treat during an engagement.
This is like when the army and Marines went with body armour.
It's a win, for the troops, bean counters and effectiveness in a combat environment.
 
The movie and game industries have fooled the public into thinking suppressed weapons are silent and something only spies and assassins use.
And dramatically reduce flash signature.
Unfortunately, reducing flash signature is one of the rationale given for the Marine but. Quoting the linked to article:

“The suppressor reduces their audible and visual signature, making it more difficult for the enemy to ascertain their location.”

That’s exactly the argument asserted by those opposing civilian use of suppressors.
 
Unfortunately, reducing flash signature is one of the rationale given for the Marine but. Quoting the linked to article:

“The suppressor reduces their audible and visual signature, making it more difficult for the enemy to ascertain their location.”

That’s exactly the argument asserted by those opposing civilian use of suppressors.

Yeah of course, but anyone using them or hearing them will quickly realize they’re still friggin loud.
 
Kinda....

My understanding is that they wanted to put all handguns under the NFA, and therefore had to ban SBRs and SBSs because they were basically pistols. But then pistols got removed from the NFA, and nobody bothered to remove the SBR and SBR language.

That's why it's legal to have a handgun, but illegal to put a forward vertical grip on it.

The case (I think) you're thinking of is Miller, where he had a SBS, and the state argued that because the military didn't use them (they did) they were not protected under the 2nd amendment. But then Miller died and the case was decided by SCOTUS without him or any defense.

I probably have some details wrong, but that's the gist of it.
The only part you missed is that SCOTUS cherry picked the case because they wanted to declare the NFA Constitutional.
 
Back
Top Bottom