AR Silencer Question

[61chalk]

So how silenced is a AR supressor? Seen them on utube but never
in real life. One maker says theres is like a .22....I would think that
they would be better...guess from the movies right...does it have that
.22 crack to it? I've also heard that after the round gets down range
it creates the crack an it sounds like someone is shooting back at you...
is this true. An were you dissapointed with the results of your AR suppressor?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It sounds pretty much like an unsuppressed .22LR. Sometimes even a bit louder depending on the environment.

Any bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound creates its own little sonic shock wave as it travels. So the .223 (which is definitely supersonic) will make that crack. The crack reflects off of objects as it passes them. It doesn't sound like someone is shooting back at you, it sounds kind of a like an air wrench on an enclosed berm and on an open range it sounds like a tiny jet just flew downrange.

As far as disappointed, they add a bunch of weight (20oz+ usually) and they create a lot of heat in addition. On the plus side, it is a dramatic and noticeable reduction in noise even if it is still obviously a gunshot and it does help a lot with hearing safety issues when you are doing a lot of shooting.

 

[briansmithwins]

Suppressors do get rid of the bang from the muzzle blast. Rifle suppressors generally don't reduce the sound to a level that's completely ear safe. The best way I can describe the noise is like a really loud hissing.

To get near Hollywood performance you'll need a subsonic rifle bullet.

BSW

 

[Robert]

The one I heard sounded like a regular .22 LR

 

[ny32182]

I agree, it brings the muzzle blast itself down to about .22lr level, or *just* over the pain threshold, plus the sonic crack, which is much more than that of a .22lr, but not loud by itself compared to the muzzle blast, even suppressed... really, really big, monumental improvement if you need to shoot briefly without ear pro, like in a home defense type situation. I wouldn't want to shoot one all day without ear pro however. I fired 60 rounds through one once unprotected, and had a slight ringing in one ear.

If you want truely quiet, suppress a subsonic pistol bullet... the loudest noises shooting one of those are the action cycling, and the bullet hitting the target, and neither of those are even close to the pain threshold.

 

[tkopp]

Olympic Arms makes a .45acp AR15. MSAR is poised to release an AUG-format .45 carbine. With careful selection of ammunition (or hand loading) one could keep the rounds subsonic for effective noise suppression.

 

[cavman]

if you need to shoot briefly without ear pro, like in a home defense type situation. If you want truely quiet, suppress a subsonic pistol bullet

Can one use safely (i.e. will stop the bad guy) a subsonic 5.56 bullet? If so that would be great to have.

 

[Sam1911]

If you want truely quiet, suppress a subsonic pistol bullet... the loudest noises shooting one of those are the action cycling, and the bullet hitting the target, and neither of those are even close to the pain threshold.

When a friend of mine first got his threaded barrel for his Glock so he could mount his 9mm suppressor we really enjoyed playing around on the indoor range with his subsonic loads.

Then he inserted a mag of 1200 fps + stuff and I didn't think to put the muffs back on. OUCH. The supersonic crack, even of a pistol round, is enough noise to be painful (and cause damage), especially indoors.

Way quieter than it would have been without the can, of course, but still not pleasant.

one could keep the rounds subsonic for effective noise suppression.

Shouldn't be too hard to find decently effective sub-sonic .45ACP ammo...

-Sam

 

[ny32182]

I would not use a ~55gr bullet at 1100fps for self defense, no. If I wanted subsonic, I would stick to heavier, bigger caliber pistol bullets. I am not familiar with subsonic rifle loads in general, but I'm guessing an AR wouldn't even run using standard rifle powder, loaded that lightly.

 

[61chalk]

Thanks guys...I've seen the price of AR silencer's dropping an some down around
the 500.00 range....If I lived back in the country where I could just shoot out the
window again I think I would get one for sure....that AR in .45 with a silencer sounds
kinda good...still thinking though,...

 

[wishin]

if you need to shoot briefly without ear pro, like in a home defense type situation.

I believe it would be a moot point! Would rather have potentially damaged hearing.

 

[ny32182]

You would prefer to damage your hearing?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From the shooting I've done, the problem with a suppressor on a 16" barrel is that it makes the rifle awkward in dynamic shooting. You get increased length and it is a lot harder to hold groups shooting and moving with 20 oz of weight hanging off the muzzle. Just consider how much the muzzle normally swings around during that type of shooting and now picture another 20oz and 6" out there.

When I first tried to do some basic close-in shooting with a suppressor, I was shocked. I couldn't believe how bad I had become. Took the suppressor off and went back to shooting as I was used to. It wasn't anything wrong with the rifle or suppressor - I just wasn't use to the extra length and weight and it was throwing me off.

On an SBR though, it does make a lot of sense. The length is more like a 16"; but the noise is much less than an unsuppressed 16". It also makes for pleasant recreational shooting in more traditional styles (kneeling, prone, sitting, bench). So far, the suppressor has been popular with new shooters who aren't accustomed to real firearms, too.

 

[Ranb]

Silencers work well on AR’s. They can make them safe to shoot standard ammo without ear plugs as long as you are out in the open. Using subsonic ammo lowers the noise level even more, but my subsonic loads do not cycle the action. I think my suppressed AR is less noisy than an unsuppressed 22 rim fire.

The down side is that you get much more crap blown out of the ejection port when suppressed, this is bad for us lefties. Make sure you use glasses. I agree with what Bartholomew Roberts says about the increased weight.

I made silencers on ATF form 1’s for my AR’s chambered in 300 whisper, 458 socom and 223 rem.




Ranb

 

[ny32182]

I also agree about the weight on a 16" barrel. I intend to suppress my next SBR, which will be an 11.5".

 

[wishin]

You would prefer to damage your hearing?

In the context of spontaneous home defense, you're damned right. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. I guess could put a silencer on my .357.

 

[ny32182]

If you have a choice of using a suppressed weapon, vs. an unsuppressed weapon, you will choose the unsuppressed weapon because you want to damage your hearing?

I think we've got a failure to communicate here somewhere along the line. I want as many of my senses as possible intact in a potentially life threatening situation. My personal opinion is that a suppressor the best/only tool available that can work to keep hearing intact in a potential home defense type shooting, since it can be left attached to the weapon and require no additional steps or complications to deploy, unlike ear muffs would.

 

[wishin]

I don't think it's a failure to communicate, but just plain differing opinions. I'm not deaf, although admittedly hard of hearing, and for the first 20-25 years of shooting, never wore hearing protection. For the past 30 years I've had the barn door closed. What I need to add is that my hearing loss occurred when two 90mm tank guns on each side of mine fired almost simultaneously while I had my head sticking out of the turret (without my helmet) back in 1960. So you see, my perspective is different.

It would be interesting to hear how many reading this have silencers on their bedside guns.

 

[ny32182]

Well, I guess if you have little hearing to protect, a suppressor can't really be used as intended, and is just extra weight...

 

[wishin]

You know ny32182, it was a back pedeler like you that prompted my signature. You stuck your foot in it on your initial comment about home defense and refuse to admit it was a dumb thing to say.

"Live tests by independent reviewers of numerous commercially available suppressors find that even low caliber unsuppressed .22 LR firearms produce gunshots over 160 decibels.[7] In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB, with the quietest suppressors metering at 117 dB. The actual suppression of sound ranged from 14.3 to 43 dB, with most data points around the 30 dB mark.Comparatively, ear protection commonly used while shooting provides 18 to 32 dB of sound reduction at the ear.[8] Further, chainsaws, rock concerts, rocket engines, pneumatic drills, small firecrackers, and ambulance sirens are rated at 100 to 140 dB.[9]"

Oh, BTW it's an accepted fact that 85-90 db can cause permanent hearing damage.

 

[ny32182]

It wasn't a dumb thing to say assuming the shooter has hearing they would like to keep, which I admit is only possessed by maybe 99% of the population. You want to claim victory in your argument when you are basing it on non standard, individual preconditions, and don't introduce that information until later? Yeah. Right on the money with that signature, indeed, wishin.

 

[wishin]

It wasn't a dumb thing to say assuming the shooter has hearing they would like to keep, which I admit is only possessed by maybe 99% of the population.

There you go again. Give it a rest. The hole's getting deeper.

The Hearing Loss Association of America (HLAA) is the nation’s leading organization representing people with hearing loss. According to the National Center for Health Statistics 36 million (17%) American adults have some degree of hearing loss making it a public health issue third in line after heart disease and arthritis.

 

[Ranb]

Oh, BTW it's an accepted fact that 85-90 db can cause permanent hearing damage.

It isn't just the noise level, it is also the duration. Gun fire is of such short duration that your typical noise meter can not accurately determine the intensity. This is why most people accept a higher noise level as safe.

Because hearing loss is one of the most common injuries associated with firearms, we all need to agree on something. Hearing loss is bad, silencers and any other devices used are good.

Ranb

 

[ny32182]

"Some degree"? What does that mean? I've been around concerts, power tools, and inadvertently around gunfire with no ear protection. I bet I've got some kind of measurable hearing loss. I'd like to protect the 95% I have left if possible and reasonable to do so.

By your numbers, 83% of all Americans have NO measurable hearing loss. This would be a large majority. So let us reveiw what happened.

1) I made a statement suggesting that suppressors would make good home defense tools, since they can protect a very important sense (the ability to hear) in a situation where you'd be in dire need of as much sensory ability as possible.

2) Your first statement actually says specifically you would rather have "potentially damaged hearing". One could infer based on this statement that you, personally, don't have damaged hearing at this time, if the potential still exists for you to damage it.

3) I questioned why you would choose to use a tool that would damage your hearing (certainly in the short term) if you also have one available that would do so to much lesser degree.

4) You broke out the personal insults, and only then volunteered the information that you are already nearly deaf (part of a small MINORITY of the population, therefore not an assumed precondition by anyone likely to be discussing the merits of a suppressor), thus rendering a suppressor useless to you.

So a suppressor would not be useful to you, for non-standard reasons you did not specify. Congrats. Have a nice day.

 

[wishin]

This is what happens when one resorts to hyperbole. I'll understand if you don't send me a Christmas card. Y'all come back now.