If the Hearing Protection Act becomes law, will almost all guns be manufactured w/ threaded barrels?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Theohazard
Member
The tone can actually be a desirable trait; two silencers with the same dB readings can sound different depending on the tone. And gas flow characteristics are a major marketing point for some rifle silencers, companies like Surefire and OSS specifically design their rifle silencers to have better gas flow in order to reduce gas back-pressure.hq said:
Personally I'd regard the tone issue largely irrelevant. Similarly sized suppressors of different designs and have up to 8dB of difference in noise level at the rear 30° sector towards the hunter. Also, as far as any meaningful variation in muzzle velocity is concerned, I'm confident to call suppressor backpressure marketing hype. The variation between with/without a can is typically far less than variation between the velocities of individual rounds - even match grade or handloaded ammo - and more often than not the V0 with a can is actually higher. This observation is based on firing a couple of thousands of rounds through some 50 odd different suppressors through chronographs and maybe ten times that on a range at varying distances, based on vertical POI shift between 150 and 300m; not really scientific but still an observed and repeatable phenomenon.
I'd hazard a guess that when a customer buys anywhere between one and ten suppressors in a lifetime and not one on a whim every few months, the profit margin has to be healthy and all possible means have to be used to convince him to pay the hefty price. I even haven't seen many of the usual features like reflex chamber design or diagonally slanted baffles in most (any?) US-made suppressors so HPA and repealing the NFA status of suppressors would certainly do wonders to the market.
Theohazard
Member
I suppose it's something some people don't notice, but having listened to many, many different silencers over the years, I often notice the tone difference between them. For example, my Octane 9 has a much deeper tone with .22lr than my Mask does, even though both have almost the exact same dB levels with subsonic .22 ammo.hq said:
That's not what back-pressure means in relation to silencers. Back-pressure is the increase in gas pressure pushed back into the firearms' action. This increase the bolt velocity, increases recoil, accelerates parts wear, increases fouling, and -- depending on the firearm design -- sends gas into the shooter's face.hq said:
OSS has a unique design that virtually eliminates back-pressure and makes firing an AR-15 suppressed far more comfortable since it nearly eliminates gas to the shooter's face. Surefire rifle cans have a more traditional (and therefore more robust) design, but they also cause less back-pressure than most other rifle silencers and therefore they send less gas back to the shooter's face.
Gas back-pressure is not marketing hype. It can make a big difference, especially when shooting a DI AR-15.
I haven't really paid attention. The loudest sound a suppressed .22 should make is the click of striker / firing pin and the bullet hitting the target. Or a tiny click of the action working if it's a semiauto. I mainly use Vaime-type suppressors on .22:s, handguns and pistol caliber rifles, they have aluminum shell and individually replaceable angled composite baffles, which prevent the gas contact and impact transfer to metal shell, hence they don't "ring" at all. I have some steel, small volume Parker-Hale and Lynx .22 suppressors too but it's been a while since I've used them and I've never really even thought about listening to possible harmonic vibrations.
Thanks for the information. I usually just adjust the gas block accordingly or blast away with increased latent muzzle pressure, relying on the action buffers to handle the beating. Maybe I'm just too used to gas blowback to notice it, even though the receiver is positively full of soot after a few magazines with a suppressor. OSS design looks interesting, I'm just wondering how quiet it is and how noticeable the muzzle flash will be. A large volume enclosed can gives no muzzle flash signature at all (great for nighttime hunting) so if OSS is even close in this regard, it can be revolutionary.
rskent
Member
I wouldn’t think so. I’m sure suppressor ready guns will be way more common than they are now, but “almost all”, I don’t think so. Too many people, like me, don’t want some big dingus on the end of their pistol. I hope it passes. And I hope, as others have mentioned, that integrally suppressed guns make their way to the market. I think there would be a strong market for integrally suppressed home defense carbines. I would be looking, for sure.
Berger.Fan222
Member
Hard to speculate accurately on how markets may develop with this big a regulatory change.
It's not that cheap to do a quality threading job where the threads are centered with the bore to much better than 0.001".
I expect there will be a lot of bad threading jobs and cheap suppressors with lots of slop (oversized apertures).
Of course, recoil and sound reduction are better when the hole at the end is not grossly oversized.
There is at least one manufacturer of muzzle brakes that does not require barrel threading, and I expect the emerging market will support several suppressor manufactures with products that do not require threading to provide a more cost effective option for all the unthreaded barrels already out there. Sure, this approach will be of comparable alignment precision with bad threading jobs, and will require some slop in the aperture size. But it will work a lot better than nothing, and get people into the suppressor market with exiting firearms on the cheap.
So once there are several suppressor options that don't require threading, people are not gonna pay much extra for threads on a barrel "just in case" they want to add a suppressor later. Threading will have the advantage that (given common threads) one suppressor can be used on multiple guns (does not usually work with clamp ons), but I expect a lot of gun owners will not worry so much about that feature.
It's not that cheap to do a quality threading job where the threads are centered with the bore to much better than 0.001".
I expect there will be a lot of bad threading jobs and cheap suppressors with lots of slop (oversized apertures).
Of course, recoil and sound reduction are better when the hole at the end is not grossly oversized.
There is at least one manufacturer of muzzle brakes that does not require barrel threading, and I expect the emerging market will support several suppressor manufactures with products that do not require threading to provide a more cost effective option for all the unthreaded barrels already out there. Sure, this approach will be of comparable alignment precision with bad threading jobs, and will require some slop in the aperture size. But it will work a lot better than nothing, and get people into the suppressor market with exiting firearms on the cheap.
So once there are several suppressor options that don't require threading, people are not gonna pay much extra for threads on a barrel "just in case" they want to add a suppressor later. Threading will have the advantage that (given common threads) one suppressor can be used on multiple guns (does not usually work with clamp ons), but I expect a lot of gun owners will not worry so much about that feature.
No. Can't be easily done.
Which guns get threaded goes to which are most likely to be the easiest to accommodate it holstered and carried.
Pocket pistols - largely, no. Shooters are particular about a quarter inch difference in some dimensions, having a threaded muzzle sticking out with protector on it isn't going to help concealability or use. A few might adopt them but they well may be a range trainer - and if you practice how you are going to use it, an attached silencer won't be the same in weight, handling, draw, etc.
Self defense pistols aren't going to be where the bulk of the threaded muzzles show up. In fact we will likely hear about finding them cheap on the shelf because they won't sell, and how to cut them down and recrown at home to save money.
Pretty much goes for all the 4" and shorter compact guns carried IWB. It also goes to existing demand, not many bother with threaded muzzles altho that is usually the fault of the expense in obtaining the silencer.
As for duty guns, it's not like cops will be issued them - when they need a gun, they don't get time to bother attaching it. Adding the weight to the duty belt is another serious issue. Like the average soldier in the field, there is already far too much gear required.
There is also the issue of what thread? Will the industry fragment on that as they have on a lot of other accessories? Is there a standard rail mount for scopes used on all rifles, are accessory mount holes universally accepted, do manufacturers even keep to the proper specification using picatinny rails? Nope. Then what thread size by number of threads per inch? Different calibers get different thickness barrels which result in different outer dimensions and that means a slew of different barrel sizes.
That's not going to work out. We already require too many and the silencer makers deliberately choose different ones to force adoption of their specific pattern. Silencers aren't universally interchangeable as it is.
An M17 GI pistol might have a suppressor "interface" but even the .Gov doesn't really have much in the way of a universal mount - because suppressors aren't universal. One for the pistol won't be the needed size in gas volume for a rifle and a 5.56 won't work properly for a .338 Magnum. Or .50BMG.
Good luck with that. There can't be a universal thread - nature of the beast - there won't be makers shipping any guns with one. And that means for the most part we will have to order it to that specific type attachment - or just buy an aftermarket barrel. And when we used them, the cycling and recoil of the weapon is altered, especially auto pistols. A lot of folks are going to discover they aren't a casual addon, and the tactical users will tell you not to do it for that reason alone. "Only OEM barrels are reliable" will definitely have some justification then.
We already get that adding red dots to the slides. Changes in mass will change cyclic action.
The result is that initially it will be all ticker tape and wonderfulness, then once we settle back into normal life, the mundane issues of getting the firearm to work with silencers will settle in and they won't be all that. Nice to have on your favorite, but still impractical unless integrated. And those guns will be expensive.
We will be right back to square one.
Which guns get threaded goes to which are most likely to be the easiest to accommodate it holstered and carried.
Pocket pistols - largely, no. Shooters are particular about a quarter inch difference in some dimensions, having a threaded muzzle sticking out with protector on it isn't going to help concealability or use. A few might adopt them but they well may be a range trainer - and if you practice how you are going to use it, an attached silencer won't be the same in weight, handling, draw, etc.
Self defense pistols aren't going to be where the bulk of the threaded muzzles show up. In fact we will likely hear about finding them cheap on the shelf because they won't sell, and how to cut them down and recrown at home to save money.
Pretty much goes for all the 4" and shorter compact guns carried IWB. It also goes to existing demand, not many bother with threaded muzzles altho that is usually the fault of the expense in obtaining the silencer.
As for duty guns, it's not like cops will be issued them - when they need a gun, they don't get time to bother attaching it. Adding the weight to the duty belt is another serious issue. Like the average soldier in the field, there is already far too much gear required.
There is also the issue of what thread? Will the industry fragment on that as they have on a lot of other accessories? Is there a standard rail mount for scopes used on all rifles, are accessory mount holes universally accepted, do manufacturers even keep to the proper specification using picatinny rails? Nope. Then what thread size by number of threads per inch? Different calibers get different thickness barrels which result in different outer dimensions and that means a slew of different barrel sizes.
That's not going to work out. We already require too many and the silencer makers deliberately choose different ones to force adoption of their specific pattern. Silencers aren't universally interchangeable as it is.
An M17 GI pistol might have a suppressor "interface" but even the .Gov doesn't really have much in the way of a universal mount - because suppressors aren't universal. One for the pistol won't be the needed size in gas volume for a rifle and a 5.56 won't work properly for a .338 Magnum. Or .50BMG.
Good luck with that. There can't be a universal thread - nature of the beast - there won't be makers shipping any guns with one. And that means for the most part we will have to order it to that specific type attachment - or just buy an aftermarket barrel. And when we used them, the cycling and recoil of the weapon is altered, especially auto pistols. A lot of folks are going to discover they aren't a casual addon, and the tactical users will tell you not to do it for that reason alone. "Only OEM barrels are reliable" will definitely have some justification then.
We already get that adding red dots to the slides. Changes in mass will change cyclic action.
The result is that initially it will be all ticker tape and wonderfulness, then once we settle back into normal life, the mundane issues of getting the firearm to work with silencers will settle in and they won't be all that. Nice to have on your favorite, but still impractical unless integrated. And those guns will be expensive.
We will be right back to square one.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Hmmm, Tirod, I don't know that I buy all of that. Especially the standardization worry.
Car makers have "settled" on six or eight or ten various wheel bolt patterns over the years, and yet that hasn't stopped them from providing optional wheel choices from the factory, nor stopped a huge market from building up that provides custom wheels for every one of those different bolt patterns. The lack of a standard hasn't hurt them at all. Call them up, tell them what kind of car it is, and they've got you covered.
But is it for a .22, or a 9mm, or for a .308 or for a .50BMG?!? Well, so what? Makers already have their cans spec'd for whichever pressure and longevity rating you're looking for. That isn't hard. And back to the wheels analogy: The fact that there's many different bolt patterns, about six or eight different common rim sizes, and that buyers will want all sorts of different back-spacing options for any given wheel size and dilling pattern doesn't seem to have put the slightest dent in the market.
So I see no need for a completely standard mount. What's the point? There are already a bunch of "standard" thread patterns on the market, used by the various manufacturers (https://www.dakotasilencer.com/silencer-common-barrel-thread-patterns/) and as that link shows, the makers of silencers know all about that. As these things become more common, there's likely to be a bit more of a regression to the mean, so to speak, so dealers will have piles of 1/2x28 and 5/8x24 cans on the shelf, and maybe a handful of metrics, and if you want something more special you'll need to order it in.
I imagine Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Marlin and so forth will simply pick something for their centerfires (probably 5/8x24 is my guess) and you'll know that when you buy one of their rifles any 5/8x24 can will fit it. And likewise, that a 1/2x28 can will fit their rimfires. Where's the hangup?
As I said before, I agree that this isn't likely to become vastly more popular for handguns. A bit more, maybe 1/3 or 1/2 again more sales than today on average, but not vastly more, because they aren't terribly practical for a weapon that's no bigger than the can itself and that you probably want to carry with you. For rifles, though, I do see a big boost. They really aren't hard to get to work on an AR-15, (which is already threaded) and for which if tuning is required, the parts to do so are off-the-shelf, drop-in bits. For bolt-actions, this is a no-brainer. There are already lever-actions which come with threaded barrels -- which is something I'd never have expected to see. (Though I admit that's stupidity on my part because Maxim put them on lever guns from the start!) Blow-back style pistol-cartridge carbines won't suffer any from a little extra back-pressure, and I guarantee they'll pretty much ALL come threaded soon after passage of this.
Car makers have "settled" on six or eight or ten various wheel bolt patterns over the years, and yet that hasn't stopped them from providing optional wheel choices from the factory, nor stopped a huge market from building up that provides custom wheels for every one of those different bolt patterns. The lack of a standard hasn't hurt them at all. Call them up, tell them what kind of car it is, and they've got you covered.
But is it for a .22, or a 9mm, or for a .308 or for a .50BMG?!? Well, so what? Makers already have their cans spec'd for whichever pressure and longevity rating you're looking for. That isn't hard. And back to the wheels analogy: The fact that there's many different bolt patterns, about six or eight different common rim sizes, and that buyers will want all sorts of different back-spacing options for any given wheel size and dilling pattern doesn't seem to have put the slightest dent in the market.
So I see no need for a completely standard mount. What's the point? There are already a bunch of "standard" thread patterns on the market, used by the various manufacturers (https://www.dakotasilencer.com/silencer-common-barrel-thread-patterns/) and as that link shows, the makers of silencers know all about that. As these things become more common, there's likely to be a bit more of a regression to the mean, so to speak, so dealers will have piles of 1/2x28 and 5/8x24 cans on the shelf, and maybe a handful of metrics, and if you want something more special you'll need to order it in.
I imagine Ruger, Remington, Winchester, Marlin and so forth will simply pick something for their centerfires (probably 5/8x24 is my guess) and you'll know that when you buy one of their rifles any 5/8x24 can will fit it. And likewise, that a 1/2x28 can will fit their rimfires. Where's the hangup?
As I said before, I agree that this isn't likely to become vastly more popular for handguns. A bit more, maybe 1/3 or 1/2 again more sales than today on average, but not vastly more, because they aren't terribly practical for a weapon that's no bigger than the can itself and that you probably want to carry with you. For rifles, though, I do see a big boost. They really aren't hard to get to work on an AR-15, (which is already threaded) and for which if tuning is required, the parts to do so are off-the-shelf, drop-in bits. For bolt-actions, this is a no-brainer. There are already lever-actions which come with threaded barrels -- which is something I'd never have expected to see. (Though I admit that's stupidity on my part because Maxim put them on lever guns from the start!) Blow-back style pistol-cartridge carbines won't suffer any from a little extra back-pressure, and I guarantee they'll pretty much ALL come threaded soon after passage of this.
Last edited:
It will if the barrel moves during the loading cycle. Notable exceptions like Beretta 92 and HK P7 are easy to suppress, Glocks and 1911:s require either a lightweight suppressor or mechanism to accommodate barrel movement. Like the spring-loaded system in some Brügger & Thomet suppressors. As far as barrel thread compatibility is concerned, there are a number of standard threads, both imperial and metric, but there are also loads and loads of suppressors with each thread diameter and pitch. Thread adapters too.
More often than not a suppressor is mated with a certain gun in Europe, without a particular need to use it in any other gun unless another by chance has the same caliber and barrel threads. After spending a few hundred €/$ on a gun, another $150 or so for a suppressor isn't usually a stretch. Or less than $100 for a cheap suppressor for occasional use. Rimfire suppressors with ½"-20 UNF threads are pretty much a standard, ½"-28 UNEF a common exception to the rule. I prefer 15x1mm in centerfire rifles, mainly because it's what Sako and HK use in most of their rifles, but that's just a personal choice. A high quality threading job sets you back maybe $70-100, done by a professional gunsmith on a lathe.
Ed Ames
Member
MachIVshooter
Member
There is also no real need to be axially concentric to .001" or less. No suppressor I'm aware of has less than .020" clearance, most are a good bit more. Having said that, if you try to thread without a lathe, good chance the threads won't be straight enough. Concentricity at the muzzle end doesn't translate to axial alignment. Threads that are off center to the bore by a few thou won't really be a problem, while threads that are concentric to the muzzle but angled 1° or 2° to the bore could easily cause baffle strikes. If the threads are angled just 1.5° to bore axis, an 8" long can would suffer a strike if the aperture diameter were less than .050" over bullet diameter.
The Beretta 92 is a short recoil design, needs a booster.
Any recoil operated pistol will become a single shot without a booster.
My 92F most likely doesn't know that. So far it has some 5-6k rounds through it with a suppressor with no notable malfunctions. Just a simple, solid Vaime can with absolutely no modifications, other than having had the barrel threaded. 147gr Magtech and 123gr Lapua subsonics as well as handloads. The suppressor itself is quite lightweight, I haven't tried the function with a heavier steel can, or one with a booster / Nielsen device for that matter. The same can does make a Glock 17 single shot or constant stovepipe / FTE / FTF, depending on the load, though.
CapnMac
Member
Really, if we get deregulation, the real issue will be in how the SOT is handled for manufacturers.
If 'ordinary' smiths are allowed to tinker with designs, and sell them (something somewhat complicated to do right now), we might see all sorts of innovations.
Like seeing many more integral supressors for the IWB concealed market.
For the arms which already have threads, like the USP, the market will probably just make cans suited to those threads.
We would have to see what the afterarket world put out there.
Just as we'd have to see what the current makers give us.
In long arms, I'll wager we'd see more integral than add-on. But, we might see some separate suppressors out there fitted to BOSS threads and the like. I'd not be surprised iff the add-on cans were wit ha large expansion chamber that slipped over the barrel end, and then a series of baffles ahead of the muzzle--anything that helped reduce overall length.
If 'ordinary' smiths are allowed to tinker with designs, and sell them (something somewhat complicated to do right now), we might see all sorts of innovations.
Like seeing many more integral supressors for the IWB concealed market.
For the arms which already have threads, like the USP, the market will probably just make cans suited to those threads.
We would have to see what the afterarket world put out there.
Just as we'd have to see what the current makers give us.
In long arms, I'll wager we'd see more integral than add-on. But, we might see some separate suppressors out there fitted to BOSS threads and the like. I'd not be surprised iff the add-on cans were wit ha large expansion chamber that slipped over the barrel end, and then a series of baffles ahead of the muzzle--anything that helped reduce overall length.
Gtscotty
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,635
I agree, I really don't see a standardization crisis emerging. Even with the small but growing silencer market today, most domestic manufacturers are starting to offer more an more factory threaded rifles. There is a pretty clear unofficial standard threading scheme of 1/2"x28 for centerfire .224 caliber and below (to include rimfire) and 5/8"x24 for everything between .224 and .308 caliber (inclusive). These two threads cover the vast majority of rifle calibers sold. If you start looking at what is currently offered from most of the AR manufacturers, Ruger, Savage, Browning, Howa, Remington, etc. you'll find very few exceptions to these two threads in the standard calibers. One exception is Kimber, who threads their mountain rifles 7/16"x28 as necessitated by their muzzle diameter. Even then, Kimber offers an adapter to standard 5/8"x24 thread on their website.
tQUOTE]MachIVshooter wrote:
I expect we'll see a marked increase, especially with rifles...[/QUOTE]
Since a supersonic round (and that encompasses most rifles) generates its own sonic boom so that the silencer can only muffle the muzzle blast, why do you think there would be a marked increase in the use of a device that can only do it's job in part?
I expect we'll see a marked increase, especially with rifles...[/QUOTE]
Since a supersonic round (and that encompasses most rifles) generates its own sonic boom so that the silencer can only muffle the muzzle blast, why do you think there would be a marked increase in the use of a device that can only do it's job in part?
Last edited:
Turning exaust gas back on itself without having a way to simultaneously disspate the forward momentum of those exaust gases has always been problematic for silence manufacturers. The most effective silencer design is worthless if the first shot launches it off the muzzle like a rifle grenade.
MachIVshooter
Member
Because a good can will still take high powered rifles down to a tolerable volume for many people, especially out in the open and in situations where you're not going to be putting hundreds of rounds down range, but shooting a lot more than the (maybe) one or two shots hunting big game.
My Silencerco Hybrid takes full power 5.56 out of a 10.5" barrel down to about the volume of an unsuppressed 16" or 18" .22 LR rifle.
If we're out for a range day and burning through massive amounts of ammo, I'll still wear ears. If I'm hunting deer or elk, the extra weight and (especially) extra length of a can just isn't worth it to me. But shooting varmints or hunting hogs, where I'm not firing mag after mag, and am more or less stationary, suppressors prevent my ears from ringing while not being encumbered with ear pro all day long.
Exactly. Suppressor directs the majority of muzzle blast signature to a reasonably narrow sector forward, in front of the barrel. Supersonic flight noise is inevitable but a typical 25-30dB reduction in noise level towards the shooter is meaningful, especially when shooting from a blind. That's why a good number of european-manufactured rifles have threaded barrels from the factory, in spite of being chambered to calibers that are far from subsonic. Second-hand market is also flooded with rifles that have had the barrel threaded for a suppressor. Not everyone chooses to use one but quite a few at least want the opportunity to do so.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
I have a very early Mossberg MVP which is a tack driver but I wish it had a threaded barrel.
Mike
Mike
"Since a supersonic round (and that encompasses most rifles) generates its own sonic boom so that the silencer can only muffle the muzzle blast, why do you think there would be a marked increase in the use of a device that can only do it's job in part?"
I can only speak for myself, but once I got my first centerfire rifle can, I don't like to shoot unsuppressed centerfire rifles. Even with the supersonic crack, they are way quieter than unsuppressed, and there is also a noticeable reduction in recoil. Mufflers don't make cars silent either - there is still noise from tires and so on (in rural areas, you can hear an interstate, line of sight, from miles away) - but not very many people like unmuffled cars.
I can only speak for myself, but once I got my first centerfire rifle can, I don't like to shoot unsuppressed centerfire rifles. Even with the supersonic crack, they are way quieter than unsuppressed, and there is also a noticeable reduction in recoil. Mufflers don't make cars silent either - there is still noise from tires and so on (in rural areas, you can hear an interstate, line of sight, from miles away) - but not very many people like unmuffled cars.
That's exactly my feeling about .22 rifles: I have two Thompson Center R55s which were not produced with threaded barrels. I had those threaded and got cans for them as soon as I could. I had a SIG522 also, and one of the must-have features I looked for was a threaded barrel.
I do research on suppressors, I have started with one can and now have another 10 to test. My total is 13 suppressors, all for .22 and from various manufacturers: Switzerland, Norway, Finland, India, New Zealand and England.
I have fired 15,000 rounds through an A-TEC CMM4(6) without cleaning it, not even spraying anything into the can. It has picked up 60g of residues and all the air spaces are now opacified with lead. Yet it is still going strong. I am waiting for it to fail or reach its maximum mass, looks like I have to wait a bit longer. Those 15,000 rounds were fired over a period of 14 months.
The key thing about that A-TEC is that it is a good suppressor and costs £84 retail. If it blew up tomorrow I would consider myself having got my money's worth out of it. I would just shrug and buy another one.
Suppressors require a license in the UK, or a variation to a license (£26 fee) but there is no resistance to these being granted. In fact they are encouraged because they reduce noise and protect hearing. The 10 cans I bought have a price range of £34 to £219. The median price is £60-£80 retail.
Arizona_Mike
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2013
- Messages
- 3,452
Sonic boom also does not give away your location. Animals and people will hear the boom coming from the direction of closest approach.
Mike
Mike
There's been several of these comments so far in this thread. What am I missing? I bought a Lone Wolf barrel for my Glock 19 so I could use it with lead bullets. Since the threaded version was was only $20 more at the time I went with that in case I decided to spring for a suppressor in the future. I don't notice the slightest bit of difference when carrying and using the gun with the threaded barrel. It's certainly not harder to conceal.
- Status
