I’ve always understood that suppressors are more along the lines of something to diminish the report of the firearm, and are typically used by special operations forces to sneak up on the enemy and shoot them up without alerting the whole place through gunfire that they’re there.
Most conventional forces don’t need that kind of stealth- an infantry company may set up an ambush, but after you start firing- who cares? And if they’re attacking- who cares? Same thing if they’re defending. Plus, they use stuff like real machine guns- like others have said, you can’t silence a M249, M240B or M2, or a mortar.
Beyond that, one thing about suppressed firearms is that they frequently require special subsonic ammunition, which translates into shorter range, and less stopping power.
So for Joe Infantryman, having that suppressor means that he can’t shoot as far or as effectively as if he didn’t have it, and it’s not really helping him stay hidden or anything like that, plus it makes his rifle heavier.
In summary:
Troops don’t get to insist.
Cost is exorbitant for all rifles. Spec Forces are small, mission may required suppressed weapons or may required flash/bang grenades - quite the contrast.
They wear out. See above about cost.
You need subsonic ammunition to be effective. See that cost thing above.
You make the rifle heavier and less wieldy. Troops get all pissy about those things.
You have train with the new and old ammo - that pesky cost thing again. Troops will shoot many more rounds in training over their career than in combat.
The sound of your rifle is one of the least noisiest things - see: vehicles, tanks, artillery, machine guns, grenades, IEDs, RPGs, etc…
The ammo doesn’t shoot as far - was/is a problem in recent US engagements.
No standard for suppression; what level is acceptable, for how many rounds, what loss in range, change in accuracy levels, …
We’ll see hand held death rays before universal silencer use.
Those in the military who need them or could benefit from their use do have them and use them for the types of operations in which they are useful. These things are not universally beneficial for all missions.
I have no idea what kind of point you were trying to make about the .22LR.
Weapons, like everything else, are trade offs. The AK-47 can withstand an enormous amount of abuse which is handy for a novice operating in extreme environments.
Are you of the opinion the AK-47 is better on all fronts than what the armed forces currently use, and it’s just out of pride they haven’t copied the design for their own militaries?
In squad level combat, or platoon, isn’t the sound of rifles often an advantage? For instance, a sudden outburst of small arms fire is quite shocking and suppressing; unexpected thunder of machine guns can make enemies simply run away (I’ve seen it!, though not in actual combat, thank god). I’m certainly not an expert, but most firing in such combat is rather to keep people down, away, scattered, while taking other measures (movement, for instance), rather than actually shooting and killing enemy soldiers (whom you’ll seldom see clear enough or long enough). So, lots of lead and lots of sound is the way to go for regular squads?
Well, they do. Thousands and thousands of troops around the world use the AK47. No line troops anywhere use suppressors.
And yes, the AK is a reliable gun. But the M16 weighs less, is more ergonomic, easier to change magazines, easier to use safety, more accurate, and has a longer effective range. You can carry twice as much ammo for the same weight. Basically the AK47 was a great weapon to equip masses of poorly trained troops. It still is.
I just have to say: this is an awful abuse logic. Shame, shame.
There are surely factual reasons why suppressors aren’t widely used – cost, utility, something else – but the fact that something isn’t used is not by itself the reason that it isn’t used. That’s circular reasoning.
I don’t know the underlying reason, but you’re just repeating faulty logic: “Since it hasn’t happened, it’s undesirable. If it were desirable, it would have happened by now.”
Forgive me, but I interpreted his message a bit d1fferently. More like:
Of all the militaries in all the world, most of which presumably really, really want to win the battles they’re involved in, none have issued silencers to their general troops.
On the other hand, one anonymous poster on the Internet thinks it’s a really good idea without actually providing any evidence supporting it.
(Note that I’m about as far from an expert on this topic as is possible. But I’m inclined to think the one anonymous internet poster needs to present a few more arguments supporting his side.)