Marine Corps Systems Command has published their intent to solicit and negotiate with only one source, specifically Knights Armament Co to purchase 5.56mm Small Arms Suppressors to be used on the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle (IAR), M4 Carbine and M4A1 Close Quarter Battle Weapon. The Marines plan to field the KAC NT-4 to satisfy their requirement for close combat forces.
During last year’s NDIA Armaments Symposium, the Corps listed suppressors as a priority for their Squad Small Arms Capabilities.
In 2016 and 2017 the 1st and 2nd Marine Divisions conducted experimentation utilizing an unspecified number of KAC suppressors from Joint Operational formerly issued to SOF. In 2017, the Marines issued a Sources Sought Notice to Industry for commercially available suppressors.
This planned purchase will supplement those already on hand to fulfill their fielding plan. However, this isn’t exactly the latest in suppressor technology.
On the plus side, it’s got an NSN: 1005-01-437-0324 which was issued by US Special Operations Command. Despite being around since 1998, it’s a workhorse, currently in use with loads of federal and local law enforcement agencies. Plus, it has already been fielded on the M38 Squad Designated Marksman Rifle which is an M27 IAR fitted with a Leupold TS-30A2 Mark 4 MR/T optic.
All of that sounds great right? Here’s where they lose me. The crux of their argument for sole sourcing the NT-4 isn’t that it has an NSN, not that they already have some. Instead, they push its compatibility with Bayonets, Collimators, Boresights and Blank Firing Adapters.
The KAC Small Arms Suppressor will enable the USMC to continue to use their existing bayonets, as well as their existing Small Arms Collimators (SAC), Laser Boresights (LBS), and Blank Firing Adapters (BFA), all of which are critical to accuracy and lethality in both training and combat. These items are interoperable with the current Small Arms Suppressor.
Since this a notice of intent, other companies can still submit (see SAMS for details) if they believe they meet these requirements.
The NT4 is a great can, but I think even KAC would tell you that there are newer and better options.
After hearing the NT4 side-by-side against newer cans (circa-2011, or so), I still bought the NT4 and have no regrets. Biggest downside is the weight, but the dB meter ratings don’t do a good job at conveying the difference in how the NT4 sounds when compared to the competition.
Poor Marines
This is the same kind of thinking that forced the M16A2 onto us . . .
@ SSD it keeps the same type of muzzle device as an A-2 birdcage,(KAC NT4 muzzle device is just a slightly modified A-2), thus allowing all the other junk that currently fits on their rifles to continue to be used. AKA, they decided to be poor.
“Decided to be poor” as if they had a say in things.
But it is a new muzzle device and they will all have to be swapped out. While I didn’t beat anyone over the head with it in the article, the SOCOM solution also allows use of that same nickel and dime crap the Marines are hanging their justification on.
Since we are unsure how many the Marines are buying and how much the are paying for them, it’s impossible to determine if they are actually getting a value here.
Didn’t realize you could use all the muzzle mounted junk with SF Breaks, Comps, and Flash Hider.
You could still use the bayonet, the collimator and boresight are going to work regardless of the muzzle device.
The is a valid concern. But, if you’re going to use suppressors, you should use a suppressor BFG and there isn’t one for the NT-4. SureFire did however, create a standard BFA for SOCOM.
The other benefit to the Surefire BFA is the ability to take several live rounds. Something I would think the USMC would be interested in based off of past events.
Why would I wanna add a can onto the end of a rifle that is at minimum 33″?
(that length may be wrong, but it is a very long rifle)
Unfortunately, the rifle requirement was written before the suppressor requirement.
The cutting edge of…1998. Wow. Hope they bought these on a warehouse clearance special.
Do they intend to have a bayonet mounted at the same time as the suppressor, or just that the muzzle device is compatible? I hope not the former, because a bayonet just isn’t going to have all that much usable length in that setup.
The muzzle device for the NT-4 is compatible with the M9 bayonet. The NT-4 suppressor is not.
Thanks for the clarification.