Previous Post
Next Post

The US Marine Corps has been chronically underfunded since 1775. They’ve made a virtue out of necessity, using skill, discipline, and ferocious violence to make up for any deficiencies of obsolete armaments. It’s fair to say that if the Leathernecks are voluntarily buying some new piece of kit and handing it out to everyone, it’s both cost-effective and adds something of real value on the battlefield.

Last year, the Marines equipped an entire battalion of riflemen with silencers. It’s bee. three months since the riflemen of 1st Bn/2nd Marines fitted all their individual small arms with silencers. Ba-a-da-da-daaa. They’re loving it.

Hope Hodge Seck of has the story:

Three months into using suppressed weapons in every exercise and live-fire training event, Marines who spoke with say they never want to go back….

“It used to be a squad would be dispersed out over maybe 100 yards, so the squad leader couldn’t really communicate with the members at the far end because of all the noise of the weapons,” [said Maj. Gen. John Love]. “Now they can actually just communicate, and be able to command and control, and effectively direct those fires….”

After using suppressed rifles while training in Norway and Romania, Marines in the field agreed.

For Staff Sgt. Troy Hauck, a platoon sergeant with Bravo Company’s Weapons Platoon, not having to worry about ear protection when firing his rifle is a nice bonus. But a potentially bigger boon is the element of surprise that comes with a suppressed weapon.

“Just doing some of the training attacks that we’ve done on this deployment has been good,” he said. “I’m on one side of the hill and [part of the company is] on the other side of the hill, and I can’t hear them firing their weapons. It’s pretty nice, real stealthy.”

One Marine said silencers allowed them to limit use of radios in the field for intra-squad communications. Although it wasn’t mentioned in the article, the benefit of reduced hearing injuries should also present a huge advantage in the long run.

The Marines did have a few complaints about their SureFire Suppressors: they get very hot and can cause burns and add a bit of weight. These sound like the normal sorts of teething problems when any new bit of equipment is issued.

It will be interesting to see how long it takes the rest of the service branches to follow suit. Not to mention the effect of a silencer-equipped U.S. military on the chances of the Hearing Protection Act, if any.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. If the silencers were integral, presumably they could be made shorter while maintaining the same gas-trapping volute.

  2. Pew Pew Pew is officially on its way to becoming Pfft Pfft Pfft.

    I wonder if they’ll have a lower roll-marked with that…

    • Ha!
      No longer BANG, BANG, BANG – just bang, bang, bang.
      So how long until Hollywood figures out that suppressed guns don’t say “poof”? Y’know, for the sake of realism…

      • One man’s Pew is another man’s BANG…

        And I built a suppressed 300 BLK SBR with some subs that begs to differ with your Hollywood-only “poof”ing.

        • Shhh! Don’t SAY things like that! Jeez!

          At least until the HPA passes, anyway… 😉

  3. I was under the impression that DI rifles don’t do too well with suppressor because most of that gas ends up being forced out the ejection port, potentially giving you a nice face full of hot, dirty gas. Have the marines found a workaround? Is it not actually that big of an issue? Or is my information incorrect?

    • I’ve used my AAC 762-SDN-6 on my FN SCAR 17S and my two PSA PA-15s (one 16″ carbine and one 20″ rifle), both with supersonic ammo (147gr M80 and both 55gr M193 and 62gr M855).

      The two PSAs are noticeably quieter than the SCAR, even though the suppressor is sub-optimal on the PSAs since its a 7.62mm suppressor ans ths PA-15s are 5.56mm.

      It is my understanding that piston driven guns are louder than DI guns when suppresses due to the amount of gas escaping into the atmosphere at the point of action.

    • Depends on the rifle. I’ve never had a problem with it but my DI rifle gets dirty fairly rapidly. Nothing that would affect function in a rapid manner but it’s still noticeable.

    • DI guns do fine with suppressors you just have to clean them a little bit more often. That’s common practice in the military anyways is routine maintenance of your firearm. I shoot all my DI Guns with suppressors and I’ve never had a problem even in high-round count. Just gets dirty. Still functions though.

  4. once they become universal in the military the anti’s can claim that cans are military items used in warfare and therefore not suited for nor needed by the gen pop

    • Do Progressives believe in the “well-regulated militia” or not? They’re fine with redefining the meaning of “well-regulated” and “shall not be infringed”, now they’re also redefining the meaning of “militia”. Why stop there, just redefine the entire Constitution to suit… It’s clear the Communists have just redefined themselves as Progressives because “words matter”… LOL!

        • “….to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

          “There,” thought Madison. “Now we have guaranteed that Air Police sergeants in the South Dakota Air National Guard will always be able to carry a rifle, so long as they’re on actual duty, and will carefully secure it in a carefully guarded government storage locker before they go home at night.”

      • They most definitely DO NOT believe in a well regulated militia. A militia that got tired of a strong government would be the first to stand up in a revolution.

        Commies…..cough…. I mean progressives do not want anyone threatening or standing up against their government mandated socialist utopia that provides for our every need

    • Thought crossed my mind as well. Particularly the “stealthy” comment that the guy mentioned, as that plays into the anti’s narrative.

    • We tested direct thread cans in 3/6 Lima in 1999/2000 on unmodified M16A2s and one M4. They were gassy, but no more than anything I’ve used on an AR without a PRI Gasbuster. I don’t remember the manufacturer, but those cans made me a believer on the first mag. I think we may have had five total in the company, but the advantages were clear to everyone. It’s good to see the USMC finally take this leap.

  5. Could go both ways, could make antis call it a war item, could also get them dragged down into common use.

    TBH, just another piece of serialized gear to get lost or stolen.

  6. This is wonderful!! I predict one year after the Marine corps starts to equip all their weapons with suppressors the Hearing Protection act be will become law.

  7. The article didn’t say if they had the new m27 or not? So they suppressed their 240’s and 249’s? And side arms? That’s a lot of cans!

  8. When the anti’s start talking about it being a military-only item, remind them that the Militia of the USA is defined as all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45–and female members of the National Guard. Thus, the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment ought to provide the most protection to military equipment. (That’s Title 10, Section 246. It used to be Title 10, Section 311, but it got changed last December.) Look it up for yourself at “”.

  9. Should’ve used a flow-through design, something like OSS. Yes they are on the heavy side, but they heat up slower because no hot gas is trapped and they work much better with di guns and don’t overgas them.

  10. Of course, this would only support the narrative that silencers / suppressors are military weapons that have no sporting purpose other than


    A LOT

    OF PEOPLE !!

  11. Outside of the Marines and special forces, I’m really interested to see if and how the Navy will implement suppressors. I could see VBSS and reaction forces using them, but so much with other security positions.

  12. “The US Marine Corps has been” forever, the most politically astute and connected of the US military branches. Masters of “messaging” and “poor us” the underdog.

    • Yes, and most people forget there are FIVE branches of the U.S. military, not just four, and the Marines are the fourth-largest of the five military services.
      if the Marines are “the few, the proud,” then the U.S. Coast Guard is the FEWER, the prouder.
      If the Marines are “chronically underfunded”, then that makes the U.S. Coast Guard the extremely, SEVERELY chronically underfunded.
      And yet when the waves are too rough for the U.S. Navy, the U.S. Coast Guard goes out with their tiny fleet of antiquated ships and antiquated helicopters and risks their lives to rescue sailors.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here