What is the disadvantage to suppressors?

[mcbain99 10]

Just noticed there is a big disadvantage when using a suppressor with the NATO autorifleman weapon; it only fires single shot. Is that as intended? If so why? Seems odd.

Many people in this thread infer that I was asking for arbitrary balancing to make it more even. I am not. I just want accurate modelling of both unsuppressed and suppressed fire, with super/subsonic rounds. I defer to those with first-hand knowledge on the subject, but at least the cqb encumbrance would be an interesting factor to consider while on mission. (Although if this was to be the case, I think unsuppressed weapons should have their hitboxes shortened, as it's already a real pain to move around in tight confines.)

[johncage 30]

from what i can tell the weapons have no collision model with the environment so it doesn't matter how long it is.

[rye1 21]

I defer to those with first-hand knowledge on the subject, but at least the cqb encumbrance would be an interesting factor to consider while on mission.

Well, can you use shorter suppressors?

Can you short-stock the weapon shortening length?

If deter to first-hand knowledge then there's more you can do than seen in ARMA.

[luckyhendrix 10]

from what i can tell the weapons have no collision model with the environment so it doesn't matter how long it is.

it does, you'll notice it by trying to trun around in a narrow corridor with a long gun , or a pistol.

[Guest]

One thing, if the suppressor is fitted but the gun is still using supersonic bullets, you will still get a supersonic "crack" every time you fire the gun. For a suppressor to be as effective as possible you would preferably want to use subsonic rounds. This would significantly reduce sound and probability of people detecting where the incoming rounds are coming from.

If you are still using supersonic rounds, as people have said, the only real con seems to be weight/length.

[charliemilk 10]

Supersonics, as there's no subsonics currently. Oh and the question is what is the current disadvantage modelled in the game, if any.

Is the gun that the default diver class uses not sub sonic? I remember getting to land and being shocked the range was only set to 30 meters so assumed it was sub sonic or something?

[metalcraze 290]

No you just needed to insert the correct magazine.

You didn't expect supercavitative ammo to be effective on the land?

[charliemilk 10]

No you just needed to insert the correct magazine.

You didn't expect supercavitative ammo to be effective on the land?

:icon_redface: Oops. I wondered why the bad guys were not dying when I was shooting about 20 rounds into them.... No one told me I had to change ammo. Lets keep this between ourselves...

[dale 11]

Suppressors on large weapons reduce muzzle flash, but does not reduce noise, so at the moment its incorrect.

The sounds is coming from the chamber, and the bullet being fired, not the muzzle flash.

The only truly suppressed weapons are bolt action rifles, but this is due to the fact that they do not automatically dispense the round, and therefore the noise is forced down the end of the barrel by which time it has lost its velocity before it hits the end of the suppressor.

[fiberopticrabbit 1]

I would like to add my knowledge of suppressors. I personally shoot suppressed, shoot regularly, and am heavily involved in the shooting community in the USA.

Simple points need to be reiterated.

• Suppressors (NOT silencers) DO NOT lower muzzle velocity.
  
• NOBODY uses subsonic ammo. It is an annoyance and waste of money. Yes, it exists, yes, it makes the weapon alot quieter, but it is massively impracticable due to the reduced velocity; which is how BIS seems to be treating cans in the Alpha. Once again, subsonic ammo is simply not commonly used. Not my our military, not by our LEOs, and not by the civilian shooting community.
  
• Suppressors DO NOT make you more accurate (to any noticeable degree), they do however, reduce felt recoil significantly.
  
• Suppressors reduce volume of the shot and concussion (obviously), but they do not make them SILENT. It simply changes the characteristics of the noise, stripping it of heavy 'bass notes' and make it dissipate faster over distance and not sound like a gunshot.

  Suppressors on large weapons reduce muzzle flash, but does not reduce noise, so at the moment its incorrect.The sounds is coming from the chamber, and the bullet being fired, not the muzzle flash.The only truly suppressed weapons are bolt action rifles, but this is due to the fact that they do not automatically dispense the round, and therefore the noise is fored down the end of the barrel by which time it has lost its velocity before it hits the end of the suppressor.

  This is false. The noise does not come from the chamber. The chamber is momentarily airtight during case expansion from the bolt face end. Suppressors DO reduce noise on large weapon systems. By a lot, it's just really loud to begin with.

  
  Silencers work best on firearms with subsonic ammo. But they also work well with full power ammo such as the 7.62 nato. A good silencer will lower muzzle blast noise by 20-30 decibels (100-1000 times) but the rifle may still be loud enough to cause some hearing lose.

  This is also false, and this is the entire point of having a suppressor. Many people do precision shooting with AR10s to boltys shooting .338 without hearing protection while suppressed. There is absolutely no chance of damaging your hearing this way.
  

The list of CONS is very very short. It's why our Special Operations Forces use them, without deviance, all of the time.

• Added weight; changing balance and handling characteristics for the worse. Largely mitigated by use on short weapons or by weapon systems not intended for quick handling (i.e. precision systems)
  
• Over gassing the weapon system. Unless the weapon system is tuned (i.e. buffer weight, gas pot diameter) for a suppressor, there is a possibility for malfunction or poor feeding due to the bolt carrier speed being significantly faster than normal. Most modern AR15s will either do fine, or even newer weapons having gating systems to change the gas system when a can is attached.
  
• AND THATS IT
  

I hate seeing people make up 'facts' about suppressors or weapons in general on this forum. Defer to those with experience instead of making stuff up or googling it from other random people that don't know what they are talking about. I don't mean to be insulting, but if we want accuracy for Arma; then lets have accuracy, not speculation.

I would really appreciate it if BIS would take note on these points on suppressors. It kills me how they are currently treated in the Alpha. it's is just plain not accurate to real life. In addition, suppressors ARE NOT like 2 feet long like seen in game. Their length is frankly ridiculous. Cans for .308 are as short as adding 6 to 8.7 inches to the host system. (adding, because it covers the flash hider/comp, which is removed from the length calculation of the suppressor)

Please feel free to reply or as questions all. If someone wants to refute me for some reason, please bring hard facts and supporting evidence. You may note I have not posted any sources with my claims besides my own experience; that is because it is all public knowledge, however, if refuted I can certainly rain it down.

Edited March 18, 2013 by FiberOpticRabbit

[dale 11]

I would like to add my knowledge of suppressors. I personally shoot suppressed, shoot regularly, and am heavily involved in the shooting community in the USA.

Simple points need to be reiterated.

• Suppressors (NOT silencers) DO NOT lower muzzle velocity.
  
• NOBODY uses subsonic ammo. It is an annoyance and waste of money. Yes, it exists, yes, it makes the weapon alot quieter, but it is massively impracticable due to the reduced velocity; which is how BIS seems to be treating cans in the Alpha. Once again, subsonic ammo is simply not commonly used. Not my our military, not by our LEOs, and not by the civilian shooting community.
  
• Suppressors DO NOT make you more accurate (to any noticeable degree), they do however, reduce felt recoil significantly.
  
• Suppressors reduce volume of the shot and concussion (obviously), but they do not make them SILENT. It simply changes the characteristics of the noise, stripping it of heavy 'bass notes' and make it dissipate faster over distance and not sound like a gunshot.
  This is false. The noise does not come from the chamber. The chamber is momentarily airtight during case expansion from the bolt face end. Suppressors DO reduce noise on large weapon systems. By a lot, it's just really loud to begin with.
  This is also false, and this is the entire point of having a suppressor. Many people do precision shooting with AR10s to boltys shooting .338 without hearing protection while suppressed. There is absolutely no chance of damaging your hearing this way.
  

The list of CONS is very very short. It's why our Special Operations Forces use them, without deviance, all of the time.

• Added weight; changing balance and handling characteristics for the worse. Largely mitigated by use on short weapons or by weapon systems not intended for quick handling (i.e. precision systems)
  
• Over gassing the weapon system. Unless the weapon system is tuned (i.e. buffer weight, gas pot diameter) for a suppressor, there is a possibility for malfunction or poor feeding due to the bolt carrier speed being significantly faster than normal. Most modern AR15s will either do fine, or even newer weapons having gating systems to change the gas system when a can is attached.
  
• AND THATS IT
  

I hate seeing people make up 'facts' about suppressors or weapons in general on this forum. Defer to those with experience instead of making stuff up or googling it from other random people that don't know what they are talking about. I don't mean to be insulting, but if we want accuracy for Arma; then lets have accuracy, not speculation.

I would really appreciate it if BIS would take note on these points on suppressors. It kills me how they are currently treated in the Alpha. it's is just plain not accurate to real life. In addition, suppressors ARE NOT like 2 feet long like seen in game. Their length is frankly ridiculous. Cans for .308 are as short as adding 6 to 8.7 inches to the host system. (adding, because it covers the flash hider/comp, which is removed from the length calculation of the suppressor)

Please feel free to reply or as questions all. If someone wants to refute me for some reason, please bring hard facts and supporting evidence. You may note I have not posted any sources with my claims besides my own experience; that is because it is all public knowledge, however, if refuted I can certainly rain it down.

Actually I got my info from this guy

Clive Bowman minimi gunner, generally they don't use suppressors in the SF due to the fact that its not shock and awe, what your thinking of is either sniper teams or a special operations groups.

SF is a very broad group, and the majority of them work on scaring the hell out of the enemy.

Also if your point was true and there were very few cons regarding suppressors, then wouldn't the majority of the infantry be fitted out with them?

Regarding the fact that the US army can supply its troops with the latest tech, this would have been done already.

Also a belt fed system is not sound proof, for example the feed needs to be open at all times otherwise the system would cut the belt and therefore feed only one round.

Another component is the clanking of the mechanical parts of the MG, which produces one of the loudest noises due to the rate at which it moves.

And finally we have the sound of the bullet hitting sonic speeds as it moves out of the barrel.

This is why you mainly see pistols with suppressors and not machineguns.

Sorry but if your suggestion was correct then weapons would have built in suppressors, but either a). its a concept which only works in certain tactics or b). it is clearly not effective enough to warrant a change in gun mechanics and produce en-mass

Another thing to point out is the fact that the silencer actually does slow the speed of the bullet, as the silencer is there to slow the speed at which the gases accelerate, pushing the bullet out of the weapon at lower speeds.

Another way of measuring the fact that the bullet has lost speed, is as you say within the recoil of the weapon, and as with all energy each action must have an opposite and equal reaction.

Therefore I can conquer (sorry concur) that the bullet has lost velocity and decreasing in rate of speed.

Another final reason why the suppressor is ineffective as a component is the fact that due to the weapon taking longer to expend gases it will overheat more, meaning the weapon will either need more barrel changes or slower cyclical rates of fire.

I usually do put some of my bones on experience, but most of them goes on hard facts not from wikipedia.

Also I thought I would post this.

http://www.shootersdepot.com/suppscience.html

http://www.silencerresearch.com/sound_suppressors_on_high_powered_rifles.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question112.htm

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/science/silencer.html

[white 1]

anyway, its still pretty damn loud with supressors

and i think it should be loud ingame.

[fiberopticrabbit 1]

Actually I got my info from this guy

Clive Bowman minimi gunner, generally they don't use suppressors in the SF due to the fact that its not shock and awe, what your thinking of is either sniper teams or a special operations groups.

SF is a very broad group, and the majority of them work on scaring the hell out of the enemy.

Also if your point was true and there were very few cons regarding suppressors, then wouldn't the majority of the infantry be fitted out with them?

Regarding the fact that the US army can supply its troops with the latest tech, this would have been done already.

Also a belt fed system is not sound proof, for example the feed needs to be open at all times otherwise the system would cut the belt and therefore feed only one round.

Another component is the clanking of the mechanical parts of the MG, which produces one of the loudest noises due to the rate at which it moves.

And finally we have the sound of the bullet hitting sonic speeds as it moves out of the barrel.

This is why you mainly see pistols with suppressors and not machineguns.

Sorry but if your suggestion was correct then weapons would have built in suppressors, but either a). its a concept which only works in certain tactics or b). it is clearly not effective enough to warrant a change in gun mechanics and produce en-mass

Another thing to point out is the fact that the silencer actually does slow the speed of the bullet, as the silencer is there to slow the speed at which the gases accelerate, pushing the bullet out of the weapon at lower speeds.

Another way of measuring the fact that the bullet has lost speed, is as you say within the recoil of the weapon, and as with all energy each action must have an opposite and equal reaction.

http://www.silencerresearch.com/suppre5.gif

Therefore I can conquer (sorry concur) that the bullet has lost velocity and decreasing in rate of speed.

Another final reason why the suppressor is ineffective as a component is the fact that due to the weapon taking longer to expend gases it will overheat more, meaning the weapon will either need more barrel changes or slower cyclical rates of fire.

I usually do put some of my bones on experience, but most of them goes on hard facts not from wikipedia.

Also I thought I would post this.

http://www.shootersdepot.com/suppscience.html

http://www.silencerresearch.com/sound_suppressors_on_high_powered_rifles.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/question112.htm

http://www.freeinfosociety.com/science/silencer.html

This post is so full of falsehoods and assumptions I don't know where to begin, I really don't. The articles you posted and websites you utilized are so out of touch with the actual firearms community it is laughable.

I'll tick 'em off one by one.

1) You clearly have no idea was the goal of different Special Operations Forces is. In broad spectrum, all of the US Special Operations Forces are small special missions unit. By their very definitions the are incapable of 'shock and awe'. They are small, highly specialized forces trying to conduct a specific goal.

2) Suppressors are expensive. Even our military cannot afford to buy them for all of our infantry. Even as such, they are the units that actually have the number to utilize 'shock and awe'.

There is a reason every single man in the Ranger bats, SEALs, SF, PJs, CCT, CAG, and DEVGRU run cans. They are effective and assist in keeping a low profile. This idea of 'commandos' ramboing about is a myth.

3) I'm not sure why you are talking about belt fed weapons. There would be no reason to suppress these. That defeats the purpose of using a belt fed weapon.

4) You are completely wrong about how suppressors function. There is ballistic evidence and data for this, but more importantly, it is simply known fact. Every shooter knows that suppressors do not reduce the velocity of the round fired. You simply do not understand how suppressors work. You may direct you attention to an actual suppressor company here. http://www.advanced-armament.com/FAQs_ep_41-1.html#41 I repeat. Learn how suppressors work. You are completely making crap up. In fact, just read the whole FAQ, it might fix some thing.

5) There are plenty of weapons with built in suppressors. Many don't, because the flexibility to go loud and proud and to shorten and lighten a weapons system is still a desirable factor. There is no need to make a heavy piece of metal permanent when it can be optionally removed.

I'm not going to lie. I wanted to help this community, but this level of ignorance has completely astounded me. How you can sit there an play out your speculative information as fact without even having remote experience with the subject you are talking about is truly beyond me. This isn't video game land kid. There are real people out there shooting these weapons every day, testing, evaluating, and learning; and I'm not talking about just the military. I'm talking about the US shooting community and trainers running this stuff daily. You sit there posting as if what we are talking about is vague secret knowledge of only military land. All of what I am saying is common knowledge here in the US shooting community. Stop with the random guesswork, it's insulting, and it's spreading ignorance like a virus.

[rye1 21]

4) You are completely wrong about how suppressors function. There is ballistic evidence and data for this, but more importantly, it is simply known fact. Every shooter knows that suppressors do not reduce the velocity of the round fired.

He's right, look up free-bore boost.