fiberopticrabbit

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.

You are missing the point. No one is saying that suppressors don't have their place. They obviously do. All US units that can afford them, us them. All the time. You appear to making speculation without experience or at least second hand knowledge. Suppressor plus supersonic makes a huge difference. The videos are misleading, I said this before; the video by nature cannot convey concussive quality or the 'carry' that occurs from a normal gunshot, thus making the suppressed rifle sound not much quieter through a video. It needs to be experienced. The point here is that a) this is a simulator for real life, not for gaming AI, and subsonic ammunition is incredibly uncommon for military used due to it's inherent limitations, and should be incredibly uncommon in the game and/or not present. b) The purpose of a suppressor, beside eliminating flash and significantly reducing felt recoil, is to make the sound DIFFERENT, not silent. It IS much quieter, but it is also harder to pinpoint where is came from, and the 'lighter' sound does not carry over distance well. I think we can all agree that the AIs detection abilities need to be taken down; suppressed or not, but for the purposes of a military simulator, subsonic ammo for GENERAL use should not be a factor. The diver rifle is a completely separate case, and it's subsonic so it can fire underwater.

I sincerely hope BIS takes note on the suppressor thing. I love shooting suppressed and I was highly disappointed when I got into Alpha. And that they are super long.

I can get behind that. I didn't mean to offense speaking in absolutes. I assumed it would be taken in context. I grow weary of wanton speculation and general falsehoods being stated on this forums about weapons, and I've finally decided to give a crap because I love firearms and I really want to see ARMA come to it's potential as a realistic simulator. 'Bout to go shoot some suppressed 300BLK in about an hour actually :)

I'll make my reply again, and delete any double. When I said no one uses subsonic ammo, I mean in the context of ARMA, which is operationally for warfare. No unit in our military uses subsonic rifle ammunition as any sort of standard. I can say this with a certain degree of confidence due to know a few cool people. As for 300BLK. it's a New, very specific roundl subsonic or not. Our SEALs and CAG are not even utilizing it (yet!). And even in trials, it's always focused on supersonic; it just has more capabilities. Subsonic, even in 300BLK is very situation/mission dependent. Yes, you are right, I was generalizing common medium caliber rifle rounds. In the alpha, there is 7.62 and some made up 6.5 that I assume to be the mostly now defunct 6.5 grendel. For the purpose of how 7.62x51 (and by extension the in between rounds that are being used for this game) subsonic ammunition is not 'normal'. It is simply not used, especially by common ground soliders/marines. I'm curious if you goal is to again cut me down for being assertive about what I know, or to help ARMA become more accurate of a simulator.If it's the latter, then perhaps we can agree than when I equip a suppressor my velocity and range should not magicaly decrease, and covering it up with 'well it's subsonic now' is a load of BS. (not saying you are saying this) Cheers.

As to this, yes, i apologize, I was generalizing rifle rounds. As for this 'argument', the only real reason .45 has an advantage is when (usually in a military application) the person does not have access to hollow point rounds in 9mm. Round expansion and velocity of 9mm hollows can more or less trump .45 acp any day, even hollow .45, due to the velocity of 9mm. it's not always about making a hole, it's pushing enough force at the person to cause hydro static shock. PN11A, my reply was marked as 'awaiting moderation' then disappeared. I'll wait for it to show before typing again.

When I say no one uses it, I mean operationally. No one in our fighting forces utilizes subsonic rifle ammunition for any application. I can say this with a large degree of certainty due to knowing a few well connected individuals. Not even our SEALs or CAG use 300 BLK or it's subsonic counterpart. They are testing and evaluating, but as such, that would be a huge difference between 'standard' subsonic ammunition and the special utilization of subsonic 300BLK. This is ARMA 3 alpha, where they have 7.62 and a made up 6.5 round which I assume is supposed to be 6.5 grendel. I was in such a case generalizing medium caliber rifle cartridges; centering around 7.62x51. In the application of those rounds, subsonic, in real life, is not utilized by our fighting forces. And yes, 5.56 subsonic is even worse than useless for all but the most specific uses.

300BLK is of course a huge asterisk. If you are bringing it up then you are aware it is something of an special cartridge. 300BLK is NOT subsonic by standard; it is still a supersonic cartridge. Subsonic 300BLK is another special loading, and while much more effective than other cartridges in it's class as a subsonic round (the whole design was based on this), subsonic 300BLK still has pretty piss poor effective range compared to non subsonic 300BLK or any other standard cartridge. The subsonic loading is definitely for specific applications even with 300BLK and once again is not the norm, it achieves it's energy per foot pounds on impact from it's weight, not it's speed. It's literally like throwing a really heavy rock at something. It won't go very far, but it'll hurt when it gets there. Any round, subsonic or not, fired at sufficiently close range to the target has the ability to be lethal. We are talking about broad term application, and in broad term application, no one uses subsonic loadings because as soon as you have targets past the effective range of the subsonic velocity you are firing a highly under powered round. It's not very practical to carry specialty ammunition unless you are going on a specialty mission where you know for certain (no plan survives contact with the enemy) you will only be engaging in close distances. At longer distances, the enhanced suppression qualities of the subsonic loadings are negligible at best; leaving you with nothing more than a low velocity round and nothing to show for it. Supersonic rounds are generally considered to be unstable in flight, inacruate, and much less than desirably lethal in velocity once they have traveled back down to subsonic. Starting out this way is fighting the math no matter how you swing it. It sort of seems like you were trying to bring up something with which to shoot me down, and you chose an semi-uncommon round that has very specific properties with which to do so; which isn't really relevant to proving me wrong, nor to the discussion for ARMA in general. Additionally, 'killing power' is a misnomer. Lets talks things like velocities and hydro static shock instead of intangible concepts. I was actually out with my buddy a couple months back shooting his suppressed Noveske 300BLK upper, both with subsonic and supersonic rounds. Subsonic had alot of issues cycling, even out of a premium rifle.

From experience, they are little too quiet in ALPHA, but not by too much. You guys need to stop trying to compare the sound with youtube clips. By way of how audio recording works, the video already filters out all the concussive force and carrying energy from the sound of an unexpressed rifle. They will sound nearly identical in a video, but it's very different in real life. It is not simply LOUDER or quieter, but a whole range of factors that make suppressors sound and act how they do over distance. It needs to be experienced. Often suppressed rifles CAN be heard from a decent distance, maybe about (speculation) 200m, but they are often not recognized or ignored due to being so 'light' of a sound. The biggest problem with them is that they reduce damage and range in the alpha, which is simply not what suppressors do. They are also visually waaay too long. Not opinion, fact. Browse AACs website.

I just made a post in another suppressor thread, but I'll get the big one across here. NOBODY uses subsonic ammo for any sort of use of force capacity. It is ineffective velocity wise, expensive, and impracticable to load separately. Please feel free to ask me anything on the subject. I shoot suppressed regularly in the states. From the other thread so it can be seen.

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.