Dionysusigma
Member
Merely just musing on a thought I had this evening after a long day of wearing ear plugs. Could there be a way to make cartridges, without the use of a deadening system, any quieter than they already are?
NOTE: BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO CIRCUMVENT ANY LAWS, NOR FIND ANY LOOPHOLES TO GET AROUND OWNERSHIP OF SUPPRESSORS. THIS IS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL.
Some of the same lines of thought also used in this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=80956
I am growing quickly tired of wearing earplugs for 8 hours straight (although the alternative, having my hearing destroyed by jet engines, is much worse). I really don't want a gigantic, silly-looking cylinder hanging off the barrel of my rifle. I want, even less, to pay an extra $200 and waiting a few months for something that'll only reduce the decibel level by 10 or so (and thus still necessitating the use of wearable hearing protection) anyway.
Is the loud noise from firearms simply necessary to achieve the performance they offer?
The only alternatives I can think of would be either a rail-gun system (still moot if the projectile goes supersonic, and from the sound of discharging a capacitor), or electronic sound suppression (taking the sound-wave-form generated by the gunshot and inverting it). Thing is, you'd have to have a really fast processor to be able to do it in time. Fast enough that it doesn't exist in an economically feasible form yet. And even then, it would probably still count as a suppressor, subject to either a $200 tax or 5-10 years (like the infamous beverage bottle adapter).
So what about alternative propellants? Alternative materials for bullets?
Or am I just asking too much of the laws of physics?
P.S. If one were to fire a gun (presumably while wearing a space suit, and an AK, because they will work in any environment ) in empty space, would you hear the shot? Considering that the powder, when burned, changes into expanding gases, wouldn't the blast actually make a "noise" when the gases reached your helmet? And, would gas-operated weapons work the same while in space?
NOTE: BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION TO CIRCUMVENT ANY LAWS, NOR FIND ANY LOOPHOLES TO GET AROUND OWNERSHIP OF SUPPRESSORS. THIS IS MERELY HYPOTHETICAL.
Some of the same lines of thought also used in this thread: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=80956
I am growing quickly tired of wearing earplugs for 8 hours straight (although the alternative, having my hearing destroyed by jet engines, is much worse). I really don't want a gigantic, silly-looking cylinder hanging off the barrel of my rifle. I want, even less, to pay an extra $200 and waiting a few months for something that'll only reduce the decibel level by 10 or so (and thus still necessitating the use of wearable hearing protection) anyway.
Is the loud noise from firearms simply necessary to achieve the performance they offer?
The only alternatives I can think of would be either a rail-gun system (still moot if the projectile goes supersonic, and from the sound of discharging a capacitor), or electronic sound suppression (taking the sound-wave-form generated by the gunshot and inverting it). Thing is, you'd have to have a really fast processor to be able to do it in time. Fast enough that it doesn't exist in an economically feasible form yet. And even then, it would probably still count as a suppressor, subject to either a $200 tax or 5-10 years (like the infamous beverage bottle adapter).
So what about alternative propellants? Alternative materials for bullets?
Or am I just asking too much of the laws of physics?
P.S. If one were to fire a gun (presumably while wearing a space suit, and an AK, because they will work in any environment ) in empty space, would you hear the shot? Considering that the powder, when burned, changes into expanding gases, wouldn't the blast actually make a "noise" when the gases reached your helmet? And, would gas-operated weapons work the same while in space?