Why don't military sniper rifles have silencers?


PDA






nachosgrande
March 1, 2009, 07:34 PM
Would think that could help their cause in the stealth department.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why don't military sniper rifles have silencers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Karl Hungus
March 1, 2009, 07:35 PM
They do.

lipadj46
March 1, 2009, 07:35 PM
Who says they don't? I know M14 Crazyhorse Rifles by SEI come with a quick detachable silencer.

WardenWolf
March 1, 2009, 07:37 PM
Some of them do, depending on the specific mission. However, most such shots are taken from long enough range that sound is not the primary locator. The usual locator is someone who saw the flash, which is why flash hiders are more commonly used.

Javelin
March 1, 2009, 07:39 PM
AAC has the contract as they were one of the very few that passed the militarys stingent testing and are the only to offer completely sealed, fully inconel, fully-auto rated 5.56 suppressor. They also offer the 762SD for .308 through .300WINMAG.

Here is the link if your in a unit and need the NSN to order them or just want to look b/c you are thinkin of a good rifle suppressor. If buying a pistol suppressor (which the military does not do) I would recommend SWR.

http://www.advancedarmament.com/

:)

nachosgrande
March 1, 2009, 07:45 PM
OK, my fault. Just surprised I've never seen one in movies or tv. In fact, I've never even seen a threaded barrel for any rifle other than a Ruger 10/22.

dscottw88
March 1, 2009, 07:52 PM
I believe the SR-25 comes with a suppresor.

Hungry Seagull
March 1, 2009, 07:52 PM
They have learned to fire from inside a interior room behind a peice of wood with a hole larger than the muzzle/scope. Near the window or mousehole of the building is a bigger hole.

The intended target of the sniper never sees the flash of the gun firing.

It is effective enough that our enemies have adopted this tatic for themselves.

Now as I understand it from recent books on the war going on, we have Platoon Marksmen who are designed to snipe with about.. 200 yards? and target specific high priority threats such as the enemy machine gunner while the platoon dealt with those around the machinegun in the tree line for example. I believe they carry Carbines with special scopes for this work.

That is the extent of my understanding of snipers today. Dont try to ask me other things I dont know about them. I love Snipers because they save lives. But refuse to get really deep into talking about things I know little to nothing about.

Cheers.

PT1911
March 1, 2009, 07:57 PM
this may sound a bit strange, but silencers dont do a whole lot for dampening the sound of a high powered rifle, in fact, it more requires sub-sonic ammunition in addition to a silencer to achieve the wanted affect... I dont know about you, but personally, if I am in a combat situation, I am going to opt for the more lethal ammunition over the less than effective silencer...

Javelin
March 1, 2009, 07:58 PM
OK, my fault. Just surprised I've never seen one in movies or tv. In fact, I've never even seen a threaded barrel for any rifle other than a Ruger 10/22.

Not everyone knows this. The regular army was not began widely issued suppressors until 2005 and even then it was experimental. My unit was issued KAC suppressors during the early portion of our second tour in Iraq. It was on a trial basis as the US Army had not fought an large scale urban conflict with the M16 until 2003!

We were caught off-guard and all of our equipment such as NVGs and the way we thought about combat was drastically changed. Night Ops were no longer recon patrol missions, they were instead raids and urban combat maneuvers. We had to go to Taclights as NVGs were worthless. Our M240s were essentially too powerful for urban combat and the M249s needed to become shorter to handle hallways. We also had an issue with noise. All the buildings are made of concrete, mud, and plaster. Shoot a few times inside a small enclosed concrete room at 3am and your going to have issues. We received the test pilot program suppressors and after that AAC finally was awarded the contract in 2008.

The technology available to civilians due to AAC allowing their military grade stuff be sold at open market is a serious benefit to everyone. Not sure how long it will be available as they are now limiting some of their suppressors in the near future to military only orders (as they make them in batch quantities). Their automated machining cost mega-bucks and the ability to offer fully sealed inconel suppressors is a first ever. Don't take this crap lightly as if you are even entertaining the idea of getting one now is the time.

:)

this may sound a bit strange, but silencers dont do a whole lot for dampening the sound of a high powered rifle, in fact, it more requires sub-sonic ammunition in addition to a silencer to achieve the wanted affect... I dont know about you, but personally, if I am in a combat situation, I am going to opt for the more lethal ammunition over the less than effective silencer...

Though they do not eliminate the sound they take the decibels from 160+ down to ~130 range with full power 7.62 ammo. It is true there are awful suppressors on the market. This is why when you are ready to buy one you go see them for yourself at a silencer shoot. The AAC M4-2000 is #1 rated as well as the SPR/M4 in 5.56. The AAC Cyclone is also the #1 rated 7.62/.308 suppressor in the 2008 silencer shoot out as well. I opt for the 762SD as it is the same design just shorter with a quick detatch. Just do your homework.

Vern Humphrey
March 1, 2009, 08:04 PM
Actually, the purpose of a suppressor (not silencer) on a sniper rifle is to defeat the crack-thump location method.

When you are under fire, you hear the crack-crack-crack of bullets passing. The crack appears to come from the closest point of approach of the bullet. And that confuses untrained troops.

So we train troops to be alerted by the crack and to listen for the muzzle blast -- which is a dull thump or pop, and which follows the crack by a noticeable time lag.

With the suppressor, you suppress the thump, but not the crack. But that's okay -- with only the crack, the guy on the receiving end can't locate you by sound.

PT1911
March 1, 2009, 08:05 PM
thanks for the info Javelin, and Vern.. very good to know..

Javelin
March 1, 2009, 08:14 PM
Actually, the purpose of a suppressor (not silencer) on a sniper rifle is to defeat the crack-thump location method.

When you are under fire, you hear the crack-crack-crack of bullets passing. The crack appears to come from the closest point of approach of the bullet. And that confuses untrained troops.

So we train troops to be alerted by the crack and to listen for the muzzle blast -- which is a dull thump or pop, and which follows the crack by a noticeable time lag.

With the suppressor, you suppress the thump, but not the crack. But that's okay -- with only the crack, the guy on the receiving end can't locate you by sound.

Good point. I have found that you cannot tell (not even animals can tell) where the bullet is coming from if your not directly behind the shooter. That sonic blast from the bullet is moving with the bullet and our ears cannot detect direction of a noise that is traveling from a supersonic source (ie the bullet). It actually appears to the observor be 90 to even 180 degrees offset from where it originated with the shooter. It is really kind of crazy. Also the noise from your high power rifle does not ring out from the host firearm and really after about 50 yards is indistinguishable and will not bother neighbors near by.

I just wish that people would stop being cheap and buy a really bad can just to go 'show off' and it ultimately sucks and those watching see that and think wow how stupid was that to buy. And the dude who bought it is now stuck with a suppressor that does not work very well as no one else is going to buy it. LOL

Ranb
March 1, 2009, 08:20 PM
I am not a soldier, but I know that the muzzle blast of a high powered rifle can be greatly reduced by a good silencer. It can make an ar-15 safe to shoot without hearing protection. When I shoot my 308 or 223 suppressed, it is much more comfortable than without a silencer.

Ranb

61chalk
March 1, 2009, 08:30 PM
"...I've never seen them (silencer) use in movies..."
Watch "Clear an Present Danger."
I think the sniper liked his.

Kind of Blued
March 1, 2009, 09:04 PM
silencers dont do a whole lot for dampening the sound of a high powered rifle

That's baloney. Have you ever shot one or did you read that on the internet?

I've shot this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SIWkwO-ZhI&feature=channel_page), and I would consider the difference to be "a whole lot", even with supersonic ammunition.

Javelin
March 1, 2009, 09:06 PM
That's baloney. Have you ever shot one or did you read that on the internet?

I've shot this one, and I would consider the difference to be "a whole lot", even with supersonic ammunition.


Awh yes one of SilencerTalks own. ;)

USSR
March 1, 2009, 09:15 PM
To someone on the receiving end of long range fire, there is a crack about like a short barreled .22 rifle (which is the bullet breaking the sound barrier as it passes by you - or hits you), followed about 1.5 seconds later by a low, rolling boom (like thunder at a great distance). Though you know you are being shot at, it's really hard to locate where it's coming from. Have had thousands of rounds pass just 3 feet over my head. At the distances typically shot by military snipers, wind is their primary concern, not the sound of their rifle.

Don

jackdanson
March 1, 2009, 09:34 PM
this may sound a bit strange, but silencers dont do a whole lot for dampening the sound of a high powered rifle, in fact, it more requires sub-sonic ammunition in addition to a silencer to achieve the wanted affect... I dont know about you, but personally, if I am in a combat situation, I am going to opt for the more lethal ammunition over the less than effective silencer...

Yeah, +1 on that.

Wouldn't you need subsonic ammunition for it to be effective? I'd think that it would mess with the ballistics too much.. maybe on a DMR, but not a sniper rifle/m40.

Ranb
March 1, 2009, 09:42 PM
If the muzzle blast of a high powered rifle is reduced by 20 decibels or a factor of 100, why is this not a "whole lot"?

While the smaller powder charge of some subsonic rounds, such as the ten grains in a 300 whisper verses the 45 grain charge of a 308 leads to much lower noise levels, just the fact that noise is lowered by 20 decibels makes a very big diffence.

Try shooting two ar-15's side by side, one suppressed and one not. Then tell me how effective the silencer is. I have done this with Walther P-22's and ar-15's. The reduction in noise is very dramatic.

While the point of impact can change lots with the silencer on, it is just a matter of adjusting your sights/scope. No big deal unless you keep on switching back and forth

Ranb

Hungry Seagull
March 1, 2009, 09:45 PM
I wonder what a Silencer will look like on a 120mm Mortor or a 155mm?

The noise laws get restrictive by the year you know :neener:

Ohio Gun Guy
March 1, 2009, 09:52 PM
It has been a while but I believe decibels are measured in a factor of 10. So a seemingly small change numerically (ie 20db) may be a large audible change. It is the result of a fun formula, and I believe "log" (Most seldom button on your calculator) button is invoked in the process, kind of like the Fugita scale for tornados (F1, F2, etc.)

Again, It has been a while since college so someone correct me if I am wrong.:rolleyes:

Ranb
March 1, 2009, 09:54 PM
3 decibels equals 2 times change, 10 decibels 100 times, 20 decibels 100 times, ect.

Ranb

chuckusaret
March 1, 2009, 09:57 PM
I spent a day or two in combat and never remember seeing a silencer used by our snipers. But, what difference does it make, most sniper targets are taken at long range.

Ranb
March 1, 2009, 09:58 PM
It might protect their hearing. :)

Ranb

Ohio Gun Guy
March 1, 2009, 10:03 PM
Is a silencer a violation of the terms and conditions on the back of your MAN CARD, since it is not PPE?

From memory...."Proper PPE shall not be worn by the holder of this card for fear of recrimination for un-manly behavior."


:D

Javelin
March 1, 2009, 10:06 PM
Yeah, +1 on that.

Wouldn't you need subsonic ammunition for it to be effective? I'd think that it would mess with the ballistics too much.. maybe on a DMR, but not a sniper rifle/m40.

If you decided to to shoot big-bore rifle subsonics such as say the 300 whisper with a good suppressor it sounds about like a paintball gun or air rifle for all intents and purposes.

:)

Ranb
March 1, 2009, 10:09 PM
It has been over 20 years since I have used or heard a paint ball gun, but my 300/338/510 whispers sound like a car door slamming when used with silencers.

My suppressed ar-15 sounds like an air hose being disconnected.

Ranb

M67
March 1, 2009, 10:41 PM
I wonder what a Silencer will look like on a 120mm Mortor or a 155mm? Something like this...

PALMERJ
March 1, 2009, 10:56 PM
I use a silencer on almost every gun I shoot. I personaly think it is rude to shoot near me without one.

I use the suppressor because I dont need to wear hearing protection with them. Even on my 50BMG the sound is reduced enough to not need hearing protection.

Javelin
March 1, 2009, 10:58 PM
Thats a Palidan which fires a 155 artillery shell (which sends munitions that weigh 44kg ~100lbs on target that range from HE, lume to flachette). I have seen that pic before but never in practice (though I was never an Artilleryman) I think that they could have been a possible prototype for force on force red army type signature masking??

The Ruskies had/have the biggest artillery in the world which was the centerpeice of their entire military force. It was said that if in a blue v red conflict that they pinpointed your position on the front you would be dead in 15 seconds (time from steel to target). So we did go through some great lengths to figure out how to mask positions all the way to HELO lifting 155mm artillery to location and jumping every 15 minute intervals (which was practiced all the way until the Iraqi conflict in which our artillery is stationary).

I might have went a little too much with the info but that is a neat idea for suppressing a 155 huh?

:)

Ohio Gun Guy
March 1, 2009, 11:30 PM
Ever wonder what it would be like if the Russians and U.S. got into it, full scale (Less Nukes). There is no amount of training, skill, physical shape, etc. that could save you if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Complete destruction of targeted areas. We both have spent 60+ years honing the sword to specifically combat eachother. :what:

Claude Clay
March 1, 2009, 11:37 PM
I'm thinking that the shooter is not too concerned with the target hearing the shot.....:rolleyes:

trstafford
March 2, 2009, 03:42 AM
Recently saw an episode of Shooting Gallery where they were at a silencer shoot. They new suppressors do not affect accuracy like previous ones did and they even have them for the 50 BMG it keeps dirt and sand blast from giving the shooters position away in addition to reduced noise and recoil. It was a great episode.

usmc1371
March 2, 2009, 03:44 AM
suppersed MK19... think about it:)
If you don't know what a MK 19 is look it up and you will get the joke.

Ignition Override
March 2, 2009, 04:03 AM
And so a rifle (SKS) muzzle velocity of 2400 fps is not reduced by more than about 20% in a silencer? Or the same amount with an AR-15?

In other words, there is still enough 'bang' left, but having lost a chunk of energy, it is not worth the trouble in actual combat?

General Geoff
March 2, 2009, 10:10 AM
Silencers do not appreciably affect muzzle velocity.

Ranb
March 2, 2009, 12:13 PM
The only silencers that reduce velocity are those made with wipes; rubber disk that the bullets punch through. While the disks are very effective at reducing noise, they wear out quickly, reduce speed and ruin accuracy.

Modern silencers using metal baffles that do not touch the bullets do not reduce speed at all. Some silencers also exhibit what is called suppressor boost, a very slight increase in speed due to the gases still pushing on the bullet as it passes through the silencer.

Ranb

Acera
March 2, 2009, 12:54 PM
M67, I was about to post that same picture. LOL.



The purpose of that particular device was to keep the German civilians happy by not disturbing them as much. In Europe the civilians live very close to live ranges, and their needs for noise abatement are attended to as best they can be.

PALMERJ
March 2, 2009, 01:15 PM
you might see a reduction of about 200 fps throught any modern can even the ones with steel baffles.

wally
March 2, 2009, 03:22 PM
silencers dont do a whole lot for dampening the sound of a high powered rifle That's baloney. Have you ever shot one or did you read that on the internet?


Though they do not eliminate the sound they take the decibels from 160+ down to ~130 range with full power 7.62 ammo.

While 30db is indeed an impressive reduction, 130db is still way above the level that'll cause hearing loss.

I've shot a suppressed 9mm Glock that claimed 26db reduction, hearing protection is still required and nobody on the firing line had any doubt as to when I was shooting.

--wally.

freakshow10mm
March 2, 2009, 03:48 PM
The military does in fact use pistol suppressors. In fact, DeGroat just sent several hundred pistol suppressors over to the military for immediate use in Iraq.

MT GUNNY
March 2, 2009, 04:27 PM
I may be Wrong But I think you don't see Threaded Muzzles is Because the Suppressor itself is Modified to Quick attach to the Flash Suppressor!

Ranb
March 2, 2009, 05:19 PM
PALMERJ,

What silencer and gun combination were you using that resulted in such a large decrease in velocity? Were you getting baffle strikes? Were you using a can with wipes?

Ranb

highorder
March 2, 2009, 05:24 PM
you might see a reduction of about 200 fps throught any modern can even the ones with steel baffles.

You might just see pigs fly...

seriously though, what are you talking about?

modern wipeless supressors do not affect muzzle velocity in any meaningful way.

Javelin
March 2, 2009, 09:24 PM
The military does in fact use pistol suppressors. In fact, DeGroat just sent several hundred pistol suppressors over to the military for immediate use in Iraq.


For what and if this is now issue which suppressor got the contract? We don't use our M9s in Iraq other than a convenient way to walk around inside the wire. Outside the wire a black rifle is what you need.

I've shot a suppressed 9mm Glock that claimed 26db reduction, hearing protection is still required and nobody on the firing line had any doubt as to when I was shooting.


I wish you could hear a shot with a Trident-9 and Glock host. At 122dB there is no need for any hearing protection. I shoot mine at the range all the time and the bullet splashing against the backstop is much louder than the bullet being shot.

:)

ExtremeSquared
March 2, 2009, 10:17 PM
Suppressors kill the muzzle blast, which can be an easy way to identify a point source of directional sound.
The supersonic crack behaves completely differently because the bullet is going faster than sound. You will hear the crack from the bullet's near pass first, then in reverse towards the muzzle, if that makes any sense. Even if it doesn't make sense, it is not easy to track where shots are coming from based on supersonic crack.
Also if the bullet is barely supersonic, the near-pass crack can conceal the muzzle report.

Zak Smith
March 2, 2009, 10:32 PM
The DARPA XM-3 is spec'd with a suppressor.

Zak Smith
March 2, 2009, 10:39 PM
A few other observations:

A full-power rifle cartridge fired through an effective silencer is most similar to the sound of high-pressure air brakes releasing pressure.

Subsonic rounds fired from locked-bolt actions are very quiet.

However, 300 Whisper/fireball shooting subsonic rounds from an AR-15 is louder than that, but somewhat quieter than shooting full-power 556 through a suppressor on the AR-15. I attribute the additional volume to sound coming through the action.

When a supersonic bullet passes, you hear the crack coming from the direction the bullet path cross you (ie, shortest distance from your ear to its crack), not the direction it came from.

No modern suppressor reduces the accuracy or velocity of full power rifle rounds. It is possible to design a barrel that will not generate that velocity in the first place, however (eg, porting into a cavity).

ExtremeSquared
March 2, 2009, 11:19 PM
Good explanation of suppressed shooting.

Javelin
March 2, 2009, 11:23 PM
No modern suppressor reduces the accuracy or velocity of full power rifle rounds. It is possible to design a barrel that will not generate that velocity in the first place, however (eg, porting into a cavity).

Added velocity due to the extended barrel effect the suppressor can give :)

The Omega-30 is well known for increasing accuracy. Of course the point of shift is not something that is fun to deal with on a screw-on can.

Zak Smith
March 2, 2009, 11:27 PM
FWIW, the difference between suppressed and non-suppressed on all my bolt rifles is less than the MV S.D. of the load.

With regard to POI shift. I have used and seen demonstrated a wide variety of suppressor weights and barrel profiles. On some of my bolt rifles, there is "no" POI shift. On some, there can be a couple MOA of difference. The pattern is that the lighter the can and the stiffer the barrel, the less shift there will be.

On my 24" AI-AWP with a 20 oz can, there is "no" change vs. the AI-AW muzzle brake.

On my 26" .260 (med Palma contour), there is 0.2 mil difference.

Alchymist
March 2, 2009, 11:29 PM
Quote "3 decibels equals 2 times change, 10 decibels 100 times, 20 decibels 100 times, ect.

Ranb"

Close, 3 dB is 2X change, an increase in sound level by 3 dB will sound twice as loud, and a 3 dB decrease half as loud. But 10 dB however is not 100 times as loud, but just over 8 times . (3 DB = 2X, + 3 dB = 4X, +3 dB = 8 times, or 9 dB, 12 dB would then be 16 times louder). Hearing loss begins at about 80-85 dB. The dB scale is based on the response of the human ear to sound intensity, it is not linear. :)

Javelin
March 2, 2009, 11:32 PM
Hearing loss at 85 dB? I thought OSHA declares hearing loss at levels at or above 138 dB? *confused*

Ok Ok... it is not necessarily the dB that makes the gunshot destroy hearing. It is the sound pressure. I am not going to pretend to be an engineer so someone will have to chime in on perceived noise and how it relates to pressure. But the reality is that a suppressor does not reduce the noise so much as it reduces the sound pressure which is really what causes hearing damage.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sound-pressure-d_711.html

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/eng99/eng99325.htm

http://www.lhh.org/noise/archives/22-1/noisytoy.html


But here are some interesting dB ratings

Some Examples of Noisy Toys

-Certain rattles and squeaky toys are measured at sound levels as high as 110 dBA.

-Musical toys, such as electric guitars, drums and horns, emit sounds as loud as 120 dBA.

-Toy phones for small children are measured between 123 and 129 dBA.

-Toys that are designed to amplify the voice are measured at up to 135 dBA.

-Toys producing firearm sounds emit volumes as loud as 150 dBA one foot away from the noise source.

-Noise levels at video arcades can be as high as 110 dBA.

-Firecrackers create sound levels ranging from 125-155 dBA at an average distance of 10 feet and pose a serious hazard to hearing.

-Noise emitted from cap guns can be measured in excess of 140 dBA.

****
Makes the Trident-9 shooting 147gr 9mm at 122 dB look awesome.

:)

Alchymist
March 2, 2009, 11:42 PM
I stated that hearing loss begins at 80-85 dB.

From your own link:

"How Loud Is Too Loud?

To know if a sound is loud enough to cause damage to your ears, it is important to know both the level of intensity (measured in decibels, dBA) and the length of exposure to the sound. In general, the louder the sound, the less time required before hearing will be affected. Standards set by OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) indicate that continued exposure to noise over 85 dBA will eventually harm your hearing. To avoid noise-induced hearing loss, OSHA recommends that hearing protection be worn in the workplace when loudness levels and exposure time exceed the allowable standards. "

(Emphasis added). :)

Zak Smith
March 2, 2009, 11:43 PM
Close, 3 dB is 2X change, an increase in sound level by 3 dB will sound twice as loud, and a 3 dB decrease half as loud. But 10 dB however is not 100 times as loud, but just over 8 times . (3 DB = 2X, + 3 dB = 4X, +3 dB = 8 times, or 9 dB, 12 dB would then be 16 times louder).

[ETA- I had a hard time figuring out your intent in that.. sentence? In any case, I think your math is correct but hard to understand in that form. Here it is layed out]

dB = 10* log (I/H)

(log base 10).

I/H is also known as the sound intensity factor (I.F.).

A change in the ratio I/H of a factor of ten yields a dB of 10.. by definition.

+3 dB is 2x IF
+6 dB is 4x IF
+10 dB is 10x IF
+20 dB is 100x IF
+30 dB is 1000x IF
etc

In your example 16x IF is 12 dB = 10*log(16)

However, the whole point of using dB to measure sound is that perception is not based on the "sound intensity factor". It is more similar to the dB scale.


Also, with regard to hearing loss:
http://www.gcaudio.com/resources/howtos/loudness.html

Level at which sustained exposure may result in hearing loss 90 - 95dB

Pain begins 125dB

Even short term exposure can cause permanent damage - Loudest recommended exposure WITH hearing protection 140dB

Alchymist
March 2, 2009, 11:53 PM
Where is the discrepancy between our figures, Zak? I was saying the 10 dB was not 100X as originally posted, and using the +3, +6, +9 dB additives; and if you carry them out 18 dB= 64 times louder, and 21 db is 128. Your figures for 10 & 20 dB fall in between mine for each example, unlike the original post. Looking back, I suspect the original post had a typo for 10 dB. :confused:

And to be technically correct, we should be using dBA as a starting point.

Zak Smith
March 2, 2009, 11:56 PM
The way you wrote the progression threw me off, sorry. We're saying the same thing.

Davandron
March 2, 2009, 11:59 PM
10db is 10x, not 8x.

sarduy
March 3, 2009, 12:00 AM
http://guns.connect.fi/gow/barrett.jpg

http://world.guns.ru/sniper/dsr1-308-3.jpg

http://www.guncity.co.nz/site/images/110299.jpg

Alchymist
March 3, 2009, 12:04 AM
Yes, I can understand why my approach would be somewhat confusing if you're used to working it out by formula. I worked in ECM for many years where RF power measurements were daily occurrences, and you get used to working with dB that way. It is really easy once you get used to it, just add and subtract the power levels. :uhoh:

Alchymist
March 3, 2009, 12:06 AM
Quote "10db is 10x, not 8x."

Who said it was 8X? :confused:

freakshow10mm
March 3, 2009, 12:15 AM
For what and if this is now issue which suppressor got the contract?
My son ran off with my magazine, but the article was in a 2008 issue of Guns and Weapons for LE. The Navy wanted a suppressor for the M9, Walther P99, and MP5. DeGroat (armamentsales.com) won the contract and made/delivered several hundred to them in 60 days. The same ones they sell on their site are the ones they made for the military. They made extras to test the civilian market for suppressors. They are doing well so they are now in the suppressor business.

http://www.armamentsales.com/suppressors.htm

Javelin
March 3, 2009, 12:28 AM
DeGroat (armamentsales.com) won the contract and made/delivered several hundred to them in 60 days.

DeGroat did? He posted the other night that he is offering 20% off on his suppressors. I did not know that he won the mil contract though.

He does make a 12" 9mm suppressor that is something out of a comic book.

:)

freakshow10mm
March 3, 2009, 01:26 AM
According to the article, a DoD purchaser came to him first and asked if he could do it. The original contract was delivery in 120 days, then 90 days, then finally 60 days. DeGroat taught himself CNC code and the entire suppressor was built on his CNC mill, because he doesn't have a CNC lathe (at the time). He did the complete design, R&D, and full production in 60 days. That's astounding work and a job well done. Last he posted on Silencertalk he is buying one soon.

Ranb
March 3, 2009, 01:36 AM
Yeah, I goofed. I meant to say 3db=2x change, 10 db=10x change, 20 db=100x change and so on.

Noise meters are able to weight their measurements in different ways. There are some good articles in Wikipeida that are worth reading. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decibel

Ranb

Davandron
March 3, 2009, 01:33 PM
Who said it was 8X?

You implied it was:
10 dB however is ... just over 8 times

::shurg:: This is getting way outta hand. You were trying to help correct Ranb's mistake in good faith, and the way you were thinking about it is fine (you knew it couldn't be 100 because it was between 8 and 16), but by definition 10dB is a magnitude change. Why didn't you just say that?

Honestly, for a lay person it's not a big deal, but when you reference working in dB on a daily basis you're going to get your feet held to the fire.

Zak Smith
March 3, 2009, 01:34 PM
Alright, enough on the dBs..

CoRoMo
March 3, 2009, 02:17 PM
Posted by nachosgrande
Why don't military sniper rifles have silencers?
Would think that could help their cause in the stealth department.

Posted by nachosgrande
OK, my fault. Just surprised I've never seen one in movies or tv.

Should have known.:rolleyes:

The reason you don't see them in movies or on TV is because Hollywood is incapable of reflecting reality.

lukepriebe
March 3, 2009, 06:04 PM
I personaly think it is rude to shoot near me without one.

Unfortunately we can't all afford suppressors.

Ranb
March 3, 2009, 09:02 PM
Why not? My first silencer cost me $220, including the $200 tax to the ATF for the form 1.

If you know the basics of using a saw and a lathe, then you can make a good one. Most of my guns cost more than my silencers.

Ranb

lukepriebe
March 3, 2009, 09:34 PM
I'd rather spend the money on another gun.

My hearing protection cost me $30 and works for all my guns and everyone elses.

Ranb
March 3, 2009, 10:08 PM
True, but it does not work on everyone's ears. :)

Ranb

freakshow10mm
March 3, 2009, 11:45 PM
In Michigan you have to be an SOT to possess or make a suppressor. They are banned for civilian ownership.

chuckusaret
March 4, 2009, 09:32 PM
Good explanation of suppressed shooting.
Attached Thumbnails

I have seen that chart many times. Some of the comments made point out that many people commenting on this subject have never been in a combat situation.

Vern Humphrey
March 5, 2009, 10:32 AM
I have seen that chart many times. Some of the comments made point out that many people commenting on this subject have never been in a combat situation.

Sometimes I think it's some kind of compulsion for people who haven't been in combat to tell those who have "what it's really like."

Afy
March 5, 2009, 03:15 PM
Suppressors have two other advantages as well. The first is significant reduction of felt recoil. The second is sometimes accuracy actually improves.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why don't military sniper rifles have silencers?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!