Page MenuHomeFeedback Tracker

Silencers are unrealistic/overpowered and should be tweaked
Reviewed, LowPublic


Currently in ArmA 3 there is no reason not to use a silencer, the weapon will still have the same accuracy, same range, same bullet drop behaviour, same bullet speed and various other effects which would never occur in real life, especially not when using subsonic ammunition which would usually be mandatory to use in order to get a weapon actually silenced, thus currently silenced weapons are just regular weapons with different sounds and a barrel extension, this is not only kind of game breaking because everybody is using these "broken" weapons to take out enemies from ridiculously far distances without getting detected at all, but it is also physically impossible because while using supersonic ammunition the bullet will still emit a sonic boom which can't be heard while using silenced weapons in ArmA3 as well while the bullet still flies at supersonic speeds.

My suggestions to make silenced weapons more realistic:

Add in Subsonic Ammunition but make it possible to use supersonic and subsonic ammunition in all weapons, regardless wheter it has a silencer or not(that wasn't implemented realistically in ArmA2 as well btw.)

Slow bullets that are fired with silenced weapons down below the speed of sound.(In case Subsonic ammo is not going to be implemented into the game)

Decrease the maximum range of subsonic bullets/silenced weapons.

Note: There's a good reason modern armies are barely using silencers, mainly because the range of the weapon would be significantly decreased and subsonic ammo is more expensive though.


Legacy ID
Feature Request
Steps To Reproduce
  1. Get any weapon which is capable of carrying a silencer.
  2. Get a silencer.
  3. See how the weapon behaves with and without the silencer.(only the sound and the looks of the weapon are changed btw.)

Event Timeline

Akinari-san edited Additional Information. (Show Details)
Akinari-san set Category to Feature Request.
Akinari-san set Reproducibility to Always.
Akinari-san set Severity to Feature.
Akinari-san set Resolution to Open.
Akinari-san set Legacy ID to 3979682471.May 7 2016, 2:20 PM

I might add that not all sound suppressed weapons use subsonic rounds because they are ridiculous in terms of performance. I know that lots of sniper rifles still us supersonic rounds when using a sound suppressor(however a 7.62x51mm will become subsonic after about 800m+)

yes sound suppressors are rarely used in military operations and even when used still produce a sound that can be heard just from a lesser distance. personally i don't bother to use them for there limited useability and there is really no point.

@Scorpion, I know that silenced weapons don't absolutely have to use subsonic rounds, especially not sniper rifles, however in case of short range weapons it is advised to use subsonic rounds.

I agree, that Arma3 needs two types of bullets: standard and silent (supersonic and subsonic, respectively). It would make everyone happy, if implemented correctly, for example without forcing subsonic ammunition only, when using suppressor. In Arma 2, my favourite combination was suppressed weapon + supersonic bullets and it really made a difference, when used properly.

On the other hand, I don't think that current suppressors are overpowered.

Suppressor, even with standard bullets, offers a number of advantages:

  • the enemy can't hear the direction you're shooting from (the enemy hears muffled muzzle sounds and bullets' supersonic cracks, so he knows that someone is shooting, but the characteristics of such sounds prevent direction estimation, the sound appears as coming from everywhere at the same time);
  • muzzle flash won't blind you at night;
  • muzzle flash won't give your position away at night;
  • recoil is reduced (the exact amount of reduction depends on a given weapon);
  • your weapon is much quieter and while you can't shoot people "James Bond style", the distance of detection is reduced;
  • I'm not sure here, but probably the amount of dirt kicked up, when shooting in prone position, is reduced as well.

The disadvantages are:

  • longer weapon (could make more trouble indoors);
  • added weight (although not much);
  • added maintenance (negligible from a gameplay point of view, because we don't have weapon maintenance and cleaning anyway).

Sure, you won't find suppressors in regular infantry units, but it's almost guaranteed, that special forces field them everywhere where possible, because of all the advantages.

So in reality there are more good than bad consequences of having a suppressor, yet game designers invent artificial disadvantages, supposedly in the name of "balance". For example, current Arma 3 bullets are slightly weaker, when shot through a suppressor and I can't find any reason or physical principle, to explain or validate such behaviour. Others cut weapon's damage or accuracy like in half. On the other side of the barricade, are stealth games, where you can shoot someone with a suppressed weapon and another person, sitting next to him, won't notice a thing. This is all wrong.

As for Arma 3, all it needs is a bit of AI tuning, so it has more trouble finding you and returning fire, when you have a suppressor and engage from a distance. But in general, I think that Arma is pretty good when it comes to portraying the use of suppressors, it's only the small quirks, that have to be fixed.

Unknown Object (User) added a subscriber: Unknown Object (User).May 7 2016, 2:20 PM
Unknown Object (User) added a comment.May 30 2013, 6:11 PM


And that's why the REAL spec ops either use the MP5SD, or the supressors when they are in a pistol, the less damage or the less power a gun has, the less affected it is gonna be by a supressor, still, a rifle with a supressor even though the range will decrease and accuracy too, its a very small change

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.May 30 2013, 6:13 PM

armapirx, good point, but in real life spec ops dont use supressors in rifles or main guns for the same reason in my first note, if they engage in a firefight, supressors are mostly a bad thing, they only work when you haven't been detected

@Dr Death:
I'm not so sure, that they don't use them. QD suppressors are around since M4 SOPMOD project and now they are available for other rifles as well. Most SF weapons have an option to use suppressors, there are pictures and videos from recent wars, where you can see operators with suppressed weapons, including rifles, shooting them even during daylight. I can only imagine, what is going on at night. Finally, in some veteran-written memory accounts, there are mentions like "our sniper suppressors (!) were send for maintenance after 10 000 shots fired" or about Vintorez rifles used in Chechnya.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.May 30 2013, 11:45 PM

what i meant its that its better if you only stay with the suppressors for the small guns, not the big ones, and its rare to find snipers with suppressors ATTACHED, as most of the snipers with suppressors would find more than the 80% of it power/range reduced

Most gas operated semi auto rifles don't use subsonic ammo because there's not enough gas with a suppressor installed to even cycle the bolt. Maybe with a badly designed suppressor, you would get gas fluctuation and reduced velocity in regard to supersonic ammo and reduced velocity. Generally though, suppressor's are made to work with both supersonic and subsonic ammo. for example.

In regards to the comment above me, how would a suppressor slow a bullet down? For example, even if a suppressor expanded and trapped all the gas from a shot, it would be as though the bullet had simply left the barrel and was then traveling with it's own momentum. The Suppressor doesn't grab on or create friction on the traveling bullet in any way, it only creates a chamber for the gasses to expand in at a controlled rate so they create less noise. So how would a suppressor slow the bullet down?

@Dr Death:
In other ticket, I've mentioned, that sniper rifles with NV scopes (or with daylight scopes + NV attachment as well) are used at distances up to 300m. I've read about it somewhere and I think it's because of NV image quality and resolution, eve if the distance alone should be taken with a grain of salt. Shooting at such short distances at night, seems to me like a perfect time to use a suppressor, but such soldier could be called SF marksman, rather than a sniper. Anyway, there must be a reason behind the following requirement for XM2010 sniper rifle:

"Fitted with a quick-attachable/detachable Advanced Armament Corp. sound suppressor with muzzle brake to reduce recoil and jump and audible and visible signature with an available thermal sleeve that reduces mirage effect on heated suppressors."

The rifles are in the field since 2011 and here is a picture of one:

Yes, but our current Arma 3 bullets are clearly supersonic, there are audible cracks. That's why I'm curious, why the smaller bullet "damage" if using the suppressor. I didn't knew about badly designed suppressor thing, but it would be weird to have such poor equipment in 2035.

Subsonic ammunition is highly uncommon in military use. Suppressors are normally used with standard ammunition. You are right: there is no reason not to use a suppressor if you have one available; just like real life. Suppressors have no negative effects on the projectile. Weight, length, and cost are the only detracting factors.

In short, the are not 'overpowered'. This game is about realism, not balancing. In fact they are underpowered, as they currently lower damage and range. This is highly unrealistic and I have a ticket for that.

Goose added a subscriber: Goose.May 7 2016, 2:20 PM
Goose added a comment.Jun 2 2013, 6:25 AM

As people have mentioned above, subsonic ammunition is somewhat rare. Subsonic 5.56 isn't even used by the military since it would have poor stopping power, poor ballistics, but most importantly wouldn't reliably cycle the action. There is subsonic 5.45 but I assume it is very rare.

Subsonic 7.62 is possible, (Lapua makes it with a 200gr bullet at 1,050 ft/s) but currently guns seem to make the same noise with different ammo, so it would be pointless when you could just use full-power.

So the main issue here is just the noise the suppressed guns make and if that is realistic or not. As is commonly said, most suppressed weapons aren't as quiet as portrayed in most media.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 2 2013, 7:14 AM

i still think the suppressors should make a lower muzzle velocity, the simple fact that a tube with rubber bands its muffling the noise also makes it scratch with the bullet itself making it go slower, that's also why the suppressors have a limit of usage

Dr Death, it doesn't really matter what you "think" should happen to a suppressed weapon, the fact is, a suppressor actually would increase muzzle velocity, not decrease it. This is due to the fact that a suppressor is essentially an extension to the barrel's length, and this gives more space for more of the powder to burn. Longer burn in the barrel, the higher the muzzle velocity. This is proven in real-world ballistics. Yes, all of the movies and most video games have it wrong.

It's true IF they use subsonic rounds it would decrease the muzzle energy, but the OP is wrong that they "need" to be used. You can use regular ammunition with suppressors, and if that's the case in the game, then it actually is more realistic for it to NOT affect the weapon's power and accuracy...

Well, adding a suppressor will shift the point of impact as any extension of the barrel would, but the actual "accuracy," as in the size of the groupings, should be the same.

@Dr Death

Also, the reason why a suppressor have a limit of usage is not at all for the reasons you stated. The reason is because of heat. I don't know where you heard about rubber bands, a suppressor is made up of internal baffles, that allow for the expanding gases to expand into. This contains a lot of the expanding gases that would have otherwise exited the muzzle adding to the weapon's report. That's how it makes it quieter. But at the same time, this expanding gas is hot, and containing it within this can causes it to retain a lot of heat. Using a suppressor for any length of time, especially under rapid fire or automatic fire will cause the suppressor to overheat, which could cause it to warp, which would then misalign the opening, causing contact with the bullet, possibly resulting in an explosion (not from expanding gases but from the bullet actually impacting the inside of the suppressor).

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 2 2013, 11:18 AM

DemonMustang, either you are wrong or you are telling me many things i didn't knew and i am grateful to learn something else, but AFAIK the old models of suppressors did had a limited usage for some reason. And if suppressors work that way then it would be better for 70% of the armies of the world to have a suppressor as a standar rifleman weapon

The answer is cost. If a piece of equipment isn't mission critical, it won't be purchased, to save on the money, as even the basic equipment of modern soldier is quite expensive.

Similarly, only in Arma every soldier has his own night vision goggles. Also, lots of fancy optical and reflex sights in the field, were not "government issued", but purchased by the soldiers.

b101uk added a subscriber: b101uk.May 7 2016, 2:20 PM

@DemonMustang, Dr_Death is correct in SOME respects.

SOME suppressors have rubber “wiper” washers in that effectively have a hole in that is slightly smaller than the fired built, as a result the built loses a small amount of energy from each of the wiper washers it passes through in the suppressor but the trade-off is a quieter suppressor with less muzzle flash until such time as the wiper washers are worn then it functions like a normal suppressor (i.e. one that doesn’t contact the built), the down side is they are not good for autos and have a short finite life between servicing IF you want to retain optimum muffling/flash suppression (better than a “normal” suppressor), so are best suited to engagements where range is not the primary concern but the element of surprise/concealment is during the initial phase.

This type of suppressor is known categorically to reduce built energy thus effect range while the wiper washers are functioning “wiping” the surface of each built passing through them.

So no one can argue that “ALL” suppressors have NO negative effect with regard to range/built energy/function, as SOME do even though they are in the minority of suppressors produced/used.


Wow, are you serious? All the ones I've used or seen are the kind that does not make any contact with the bullet itself. Although admittedly I've mainly only used what was given to me, have not gone into purchasing any for my own personal use, don't want to go through the class 3 BS, so in that regard haven't done extensive research into the different types of suppressors available. So I've only been exposed to the kind I have been talking about. Do modern militaries still use the kind you speak of? Thanks for that info...


Ah, now you've struck my curiosity and I've done some research into it and found that the "wipe" type of suppressor was used by our military, but mainly back during the Vietnam era since they lack practical use for more than a few shots. So pretty much, what Dr Death is describing most likely is not what is featured in the game, and most likely they are of the type I am speaking of, which would have the qualities I've mentioned.

But seriously, thank you got the info, I love learning new stuff, even though they are, for the most part, not used anymore, it's still good to know that they've existed...

Personally, if given the choice, I would not choose this type, and not just for the cost of having to replace it, but for the sake of the mission, I personally would not sacrifice accuracy for sound suppression.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 2 2013, 8:08 PM

i am grateful too, most of my knowledge from suppressors came from MGS3.

Still, i dont think its just "cost" the problem, nowdays there are soldiers that could have a better performance using some more equipment and some others that find some other equipment unneccessary, but this is the world we live in, in real life, most of the OTAN knows that 1 million cheap slightly trained soldiers is better than 1000 tier 1 spec ops..... at least the nazi germany wasn't like that...

but armapirx, are you serious? optical sights and military equipment is bought by the soldiers? i have heard of that from USMC deployed in iraq, just 1 at least, but i never thought it would be real, i have never seen an US/UK/German Soldier with a gun with no attachments or personal attachments, just Aimpoint, SUSAT, and ACOG

Are you shitting me? You need 3905829 headshots to kill enemies with a silenced pistol in this game >:(


I never said, that the soldiers have to purchase all of their equipment, don't get me wrong. But what if a soldier wanted a better model of ACOG, in place of the one issued, or an Eotech instead of standard CCO? Or maybe a set of commercially available high quality mags, that won't jam or misfeed? He had to purchase one. When your life is at stake, you can spend all the money you have on any tools, that will give you an edge.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 3 2013, 2:20 AM

so.... how many soldiers actually buy their own equipment? i want to know if the classic M16A4/M4 with Acog/Aimpoint with IR laser its either the basic or if something is bought


It's not JUST the cost, but that's a big part of it. The government barely wants to pay for body armor much less upgrade every weapon to be able to take a suppressor... Also, it does add extra length, and it also could suffer from the heat problems I've mentioned before if they end up in a firefight and do a lot of sustained firing... There are enough downsides (whether logistically or practically) to equipping your entire military force with suppressed weapons for them to not really consider that an option...

This suggestion was processed by our team and will be looked into. We thank you for your feedback.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 3 2013, 6:27 PM

so that's ALSO because the US focus on desert fights? its not the first time, the US deny the use of "Dragon Skin" even though its better, lighter and even cheaper mostly because it doesn't work very well in very heat and wet enviroments, but yeah, like i said, after the WWI they discovered many cheap soldiers its better than a few well equiped well trained soldiers

Yesterday I tried to kill a unit with silenced PD7, it took me three head shots, so this issue seems to be non-existent. Vote down.

AD2001 added a comment.Jun 4 2013, 3:23 PM

Try doing it with a regular PO7. It took you 3 headshots because of the helmet.

Lola, please don't have the team look at this, it's not a real issue... In fact, you have to look into it to make sure that weapon power is NOT decreased with suppressor use because that's MORE REALISTIC...

Crierd added a subscriber: Crierd.May 7 2016, 2:20 PM


OP is really wrong.

Suppressors in no way affect the performance of a round any more than the wind a few feet in front of the gun would, which is negligible. I know the developers are smart so I'll try to keep this short.

Suppressors are first and foremost used for hearing protection, with their natural secondary use being to keep the signature and muzzle flash of the shooter low. Subsonic ammo is not used by the military and thus should not be taken into account here.

Frist, when you shoot a supersonic round from a rifle with a suppressor indoors, it is usually a small enough distance that there is no supersonic crack.

Second, rifles with suppressors are not used as super James Bond stealth weapons. If you need to take out a sentry quietly, there are more dedicated weapons for that such as the Mk23 or HK45 which use the .45 round, which is inherently subsonic.

Third, if you are being shot at by a supersonic round from a suppressed gun, you hear the supersonic crack near you, meaning it is very difficult to identify where the rounds are coming from, thus concealing the shooter. The main point is to keep the sound from booming through places like canyons, and to conceal the initial position of the shooter, not to conceal the shooter's sound completely.

I have confidence the Arma 3 developers will get this part right, and ignore suggestions to do things like decrease suppressor performance, which is really unrealistic.

I've just one thing to say, physically if you're using a supersonic bullet you've got a supersonic-bang although with suppressor due to the velocity like a jet. Maybe you don't have the flashbang but the sound isn't the same as a subsonic bullet with a suppressor. I'm not an expert but it's not possible to cancel this bang even with a suppressor. It's why I don't vote, and why we really need an expert to really have a real experience with real power, accuracy, and stealth conditions for each case of configuration.

But ONE THING IS SURE if you have a suppressor with supersonic bullets you're not in stealth condition, you've just suppressed the muzzle-flash, not the noise, so ennemy can know your direction. At night you've just reduce a little chances for ennemy to spot you exactly with this light due to muzzle-flash.


The thing is, the whole using suppressors to kill people in close proximity of others and have them not hear it thing is only in the movies. In real life, yes, you can still hear gun shots, even with suppressors. The difference is that it's much harder to tell where the shots are coming from, and at night, suppressors get rid of most of the muzzle flash that would be present, especially in handguns. Modern rifles have very good flash suppressors, but in pitch darkness there would still be some flash, but with a suppressor, there probably isn't any real noticeable flash. The noise is suppressed, a lot, you can fire weapons indoors with suppressors and not have to deal with the ringing in your ears like you would a regular weapon without hearing protection on. This allows for you to better communicate with your team as well. People don't realize from watching movies and playing games just how loud gunfire really is. So even though a suppressor will make it MUCH quieter, it's still not "silenced" which is why I kind of hate the term "silencer." That whole "pew pew" sound you hear in the movies is complete garbage...

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 28 2013, 6:00 AM

actually, the smaller and the weaker the weapon is, Mustang, the weaker the sound is gonna be, if we use a small P229 with Subsonic rounds with a suppressor with rubber bands (the silent ones) i am sure you wouldn't hear it from not even 40 meters away

And Dr. Death, who actually still uses those types of suppressors? Kind of silly to use something used back in the Vietnam Conflict era as a basis for modern day suppressors...

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 28 2013, 6:19 PM

still, those suppressors are far more effective than any other kind of suppressor, maybe a new tech its getting developed (or being developed) to make those suppressors more helpful and quiet

No reason to go through every if and or but, this game is trying to be realistic. Realism says modern day suppressors should not slow down the bullet, therefore your weapon should not have a decrease in effectiveness. Done, end of discussion... They definitely need to make the suppressors to the way they are in the real world, not to movie and video game world...

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 29 2013, 5:36 AM

in the real world there are suppressors even more effective that DOES decrease effectiveness, done, end of discussion.

If this game takes place during the Vietnam Era, then yes, we should look into adding that into the game. And make them like the real ones where after a few shots they stop working...

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 29 2013, 6:44 AM

like i said, those are still being under production because of their usefulness

Sure thing buddy. ;-)

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jun 30 2013, 4:49 AM

whatever, if that's your smartest reply i am dissapointed

No need for a "smart" reply. The facts are out there. Modern suppressors do not have a detrimental effect on muzzle velocity. If you don't want to admit that you've been applying obsolete technology to modern equipment, and won't be happy unless people think you're correct. Then fine. Maybe they will have your suppressors that stop working after 5 shots in the game. I never object to having more options. Except I don't think anyone, except you, will ever intentionally use that type of suppressor in the game if they chose to include it. There's nothing I can say, or anyone else can say apparently, that will change your mind. This back and forth is getting boring. So... Whatever it is you have to say, my response is officially: Sure thing buddy. ;-)

Please don't encourage BiS to do some more "balancing" and screw up the game's realism even more.

+1 to BlackLord.

To me, "balancing" is a dirty word in the world of first-person-shooters...

To me "shooters" is a bad word in the world of military simulations.

LOL, well, I intended it to be more vague since I'm including all shooters, not just those that consider themselves "military simulations." Balancing ruins all games in my opinion. It makes choosing weapons more about style than about the actual advantages and disadvantages of that specific weapon.

And honestly, while the original Operation Flashpoint is still one of my favorite games of all time, ARMA 3 is looking more and more like it's straying from the whole "military simulation" thing. So far it seems like they will never try to fix the lack of bullet-in-chamber accounting, they are decreasing damage dealt with suppressed weapons, and one particular weapon I used in the beta, the "ACP-C2" doesn't even have an accurate ammo capacity, and the first-person view has it operating with its hammer forward when it's a single-action trigger weapon so the hammer needs to be back... I'm kind of disappointed with the little details I've been noticing from the alpha and beta... Reload animations are all wrong too...


Suppressed weapons have already been nerfed across all difficulty settings which in my opinion is not what ARMA should be.

I suggest to the devs to nerf suppressed weapons on lower difficulty settings for the noobs but please leave the real stuff to us pros on normal, veteran and elite/hardcore. We understand that suppressors do not require subsonic rounds and don't affect external ballistics.

@DemonMustang - compile a list of the details you notice missing and upload it here under a "Feature Request" ticket.

I've made several tickets. Since the alpha I've been reporting things. None of them have been addressed...

I posted some stuff to the ARMA3 suggestions forum but that was 2 years ago and that stuff has been implemented. TBH I can understand why they don't have time for those little details right now I mean yes they aren't correct but you know, they working on this, on DAYZ, on Take On Helicopters and Take On Mars.

It's a lot.

I just want proper 3D scopes.

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jul 26 2013, 6:47 PM

Disaster, REAL 3D scopes are CPU-killer and they are extremely hard to code, the only 2 things in the world that could ever simulate the 3D scopes is the insurgency mod for HL2 and RO2

lol okay man but u know im just like i dont gaf 3D scopes in ARMA3 woulld just complete the game u know wim

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jul 27 2013, 3:32 AM

well, it IS more realistic than the scopes we had before, wich was around 99% of the games with weapons at all, i think it would be fine to make the view blurry if outside of the scope glass

agree with post. two types of ammo gives a realistic choice for mission.


Except it also says to slow down normal rounds to below supersonic speeds and decrease their effectiveness... Which unless you're using an obsolete suppressor from the 70's that only lasts 5 rounds, real modern suppressors do not do that...

dr death there are 2 things that would complete arma as the dominant tactical shooter of all time it is 1 - grass rendering at distance and 2 - proper 3D scopes

both require advanced methods of programming to be CPU viable but a lot of that advanced technique can be dealt with through machine optimization of that particular section of code, which BI could outsource to professionals

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jul 27 2013, 6:27 AM

you know what? id rather hope BIS to add VBS2 stuff before adding the realistic 3D scopes, wich i dont think are THAT neccessary

they wont add vbs2 stuff because it will dilute that target market

but yes i see what u mean. there are a lot of things which would be really cool to have.

3D scopes are a big deal for me

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jul 27 2013, 9:59 AM

the target market? this is not BF, people KNOW they want realism, i am sure at least 70% (if not 90%) of the WHOLE ArmA community wants to have most of the things VBS have, not because they are complex, but because they solve things, realistic FOV makes the crosshair and the TPS not needed, soldiers that use VBS can handle it with a common keyboard, and then we got the chance to walk inside cargo with no desync and be able to sit in any seat we want (what Joint Ops or Delta Force Xtreme 2 did with the novalogic shitty but very interactive engine)

BI sells vbs to armies because it has all those good added features which make it so good

tyl3r99 added a subscriber: tyl3r99.May 7 2016, 2:21 PM

silencers are fine....all we need right now is more types of ammunation...NOT jesus christ

Unknown Object (User) added a comment.Jul 27 2013, 8:15 PM

i know, but people still dont know what's "that" that makes VBS so expensive like to avoid adding these things to ArmA

@armaprix ended this conversation dozens of replies ago.

The fact of the matter is that the advantages of using a suppressor on any weapon, regardless of ammo type, far, far outweigh the disadvantages.

Weight? Usually in the 1-2 pound range.

Length? Nearly all have QD mounts IRL if that's an issue at a specific moment.

Power? This is the axle that everyone gets wrapped around. Cartridge for cartridge, a suppressor carries the exact same advantages and disadvantages. Subsonic ammo? So what? Sometimes that makes sense. Supersonic ammo? So what? The shooter is a lot harder to locate from downrange or in a 180 arc behind the muzzle to whatever distance the can cuts the sound down to. The can itself has no significant impact on accuracy, velocity, or "damage" the projectile does to the target.

Maintenance? No such thing unless you're talking about a rimfire can, or shooting tens of thousands of rounds through it. And they don't wear out in any timeline that would matter to anyone.

Not knowing about the advantages does not mean that there aren't any. Educate yourself just like you have with a lot of other weapon related stuff because you love Arma as a MIL-SIM as opposed to being another COD where concepts of fairness and balancing belong because it's more of a game than a sim, and it's fans like that.

Arma is generally considered to be a sim as opposed to a game. Don't adulterate it with made up rules and limitations. Real combat sucks and is often unfair. To that the universe says, "Too bad." That's what Arma is mostly about.

My source? I own several, have used many more that belong to others, were demos, etc. Their use, advantages, and disadvantages are not rocket science. It's nothing but a freaking muffler. One example is the SilencerCo Omega that I use on a .300 Blackout SBR (subsonic and supersonic loads), 5.56mm DMR, and .300 Win Mag bolt rifle carries the same huge advantages to all of them at the cost of ~1 pound and 6"-7" of length depending if I'm using the brake or not. It uses QD mounts, so there's never a reason for me to fret about the added weight or length if I ever feel it's an issue. (even threaded on directly only takes 15 seconds to remove) Of the ones I own, the rimfire cans are the only ones that need cleaning. (Rimfire ammo is dirty AF and does not create the residue/carbon vaporizing heat and pressure that most centerfire ammo does.)

Misunderstandings are fair in any discussion, because that's how we learn. None of us knew any of this before we did. Not everyone has accurate info, and as they are open to gaining better knowledge, and those providing it aren't being condescending wankers, that's how we grow as a capable and informed gaming/sim community.

TL;DR - Arma is a SIM. The test for whether or not an item should be added should be nothing more than, "Does it exist IRL?" Having an understanding of it's uses, benefits, or shortcomings should not be deciding factors in a sim. Adding artificial limitations to it to make it "fair" has it's place, but not in Arma if the goal is to simulate reality as closely as possible.

p.s. "silencer", "suppressor", "can" are all perfectly fine labels for them. We all know what the person is talking about, regardless of the word they use, so use whichever you like!

dedmen added a subscriber: dedmen.Sep 13 2017, 1:38 PM

Should be closed. See last comment.

The original op just doesn't know how what he's trying to talk about works. If anything bullet velocity would increase with a suppressor. The supersonic boom is the exact shockwave of air which the baffles of the suppressor divert and redivert before venting the air to the atmosphere at subsonic speeds ie the suppressors function is to reduce or negate the sonic boom.

Op is misinformed. Close thread.