LooseRounds.com
5.56 Timeline
Weaponsman.com

Can you name a gun that isn’t better suppressed?

M1Garand with Surefire 762K Mini

While browsing the internet, I found that people were selling threaded adapters for the M1Garand for under $20. I got this one for about $16 shipped.


For $16 dollars I couldn’t pass this up.

I screwed on a Surefire flash hider mount and placed this on the rifle for the picture above.

But, the M1Garand is probably not a good choice for suppressing. If you don’t adjust the gas system for it, you could bend the op-rod or break the receiver. An adjustable gas plug would probably be a necessity. I don’t plan to fire the Garand silenced, and I don’t trust a $16 dollar adapter that goes around the barrel to be concentric to the bore. But it is kinda fun to know that I could do it if I wanted too.

As great as silencers are, there are times they are not ideal.

An example of when it would be a poor choice due to the physics and mechanical problems would be when you are doing high volumes of fire from guns like the M249 SAW. Not only is a high volume of fire hard on the silencer, there can be other problems. Multiple sources report that the M249 barrel can get hot enough to melt the lead cores of the bullets causing them to destabilize enough to cause baffle strikes destroying silencers. Even on a semi-auto rifle, a silencer is far from ideal when you are doing very high volume rapid fire.

I recall hearing a story about some of our guys in the Vietnam war. The writer reports that he was carrying a silencer submachine gun and he observed when his group was trying to break contact with the enemy that his gun would not suppress them. Funny way to turn a phrase, but the guys with unsilenced firearms could fire in the direction of the enemy and cause them to duck and slow their movement. But if he fired a burst at them from his silenced SMG, the enemy didn’t realized they were being fired on, and continued their advancing attack.

There may be times when a silencer isn’t the best choice. Still I’d rather have a silencer and have the option to take it off than not have one at all.

9 thoughts on “Can you name a gun that isn’t better suppressed?”

  1. The Vietnam story – was that Mad Dog Shriver who had that problem? Or am I just thinking that because of the photo of him with the suppressed M3?

    Reply
    • There’s an unknown percentage of what your weapon does in combat that’s purely psychological in effect, on both your enemy and your own guys.

      You could split it fifty-fifty, but I’m unsure where the actual line would be.

      The root of it all is pure intimidation and fear; if you’re going up against an MG position that’s firing slowly, like “budda-budda-budda”? That’s something you can cope with. Go up against something where the damn things sound like someone’s ripping the hem off of God’s own robes? Nuh-uh… That’s got you halfway to defeat before you even stand up in front of the gun.

      ‘S one of the reasons I like the German MG school of technique. The damn guns they built for it just scare the hell out of the other side, and I love, love, love having that sort of firepower on my side. Pulling the trigger on an MG3 is pure sex, and a morale-enhancer right off the bat. It’s a major let-down to have to go back to the “budda-budda” of the M60 after a day on the range with the MG3.

      Plaster got it right: There’s a time and a place for suppressed, but there is also a time and a place for the full-throated roar of the guns. Hell, if I could, I’d want a damn “loudener” on my weapons, some of the time–The kind of thing that makes the enemy wet his pants when he hears it open up on him. It’s kinda like the MICLIC–Best use for that thing? Urban warfare, ‘cos if you drape that bastard over someone’s hardened building, and detonate it? You’ve got a solid ten-fifteen minutes before they’re going to be able to do much more than twitch after that blast wave goes over ’em.

      Most of war is psychological. You need weapons effects to be earth-shaking, sometimes, to get the effects you need. I guarantee you that there were some Germans in those bunkers on the Siegfried Line who were still capable of fighting after they pulled up a 155mm howitzer and blasted the shit out of the bunker they were in. But, they didn’t want to after the first round hit–There’s just something about point-blank 155mm fire that focuses the mind wonderfully on the benefits of surrender…

      Reply
  2. “Can you name a gun that isn’t better suppressed?”

    Honestly, only the Kill-o-Zap comes to mind….

    In terms of something one could actually buy, perhaps the TCM-22. The huge fireball and earth-shattering “kaboom,” combined with the negligible recoil, could be seen as part of the round’s overall effect on either the shooter (giggle factor) or downrange. One must be careful to get too close to one’s target, lest one set it on fire…

    Reply
  3. I’m glad you didn’t try to shoot the rifle.
    The M1’s & M14 ‘s barrel threads have no spec on true concentricity to the bore and unless you used a bore rod to determine run out, you would be taking a real risk on a baffle strike, or worse.

    Reply
  4. The Vietnam story is BS. If you’ve ever had rounds fired at you, you know that the crack of the rounds sailing past/over you is the scary part and it’s much louder than the distant weapon itself. And a suppressor doesn’t limit that sound at all.

    Reply
    • Yeah… News flash for ya: Subsonic rounds don’t “crack”. Also, the difference between “suppressed” and “unsuppressed” is enough to throw off the behavior of the people you’re shooting at because they don’t perceive the attenuated fire as being the “normal” threat they are used to. Having been around suppressed fire a few times, I can tell you that it severely screws up your ability to tell where the hell the fire is coming from, where it is going, and whether or not it is even a threat. As well, when there are other things going on that you’re paying attention to, like the fact you’re running and gunning at someone you’re pursuing…? The lack of emphatic sign that they’re shooting at you is enough to really do damage to the suppressive capabilities of the weapons they’re firing back at you.

      Reply

Leave a Comment