M-14 with Silencer

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

loadedround

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2006
Messages
3,580
Location
Valley Forge, Pa
I just finished reading a spy novel where the bad guy was shooting at the good guy with a silenced M-14 rifle. It has been my experience that a round has to be sub somic to be silenced. Is this the case and the author has taken liberties or is he correct. In another chapter he mentions loading a Glock 40 S&W, racking the slide, and taking off the safety. So my question is, can you silence an M-14 in 308 or not?:rolleyes:
 
Sure, you can load subsonic .308s, and several manufacturers make .30 caliber suppressors suitable for an M14. No reason you couldn't that I know of.
 
In many cases silencing the muzzle blast is enough. Consider a .22 rifle. Most .22 rifles are quiet enough to shoot without hearing protection even without a silencer. This tells us that sonic crack alone (which should be approximately the same volume regardless of caliber) is not loud enough to require hearing protection. Thus, a good .308 silencer will make shooting without hearing protection safe, even with supersonic ammunition.

Second, the sonic crack emanates perpendicular to the projectile's direction of travel. In this way the sonic crack alone will not lead you directly to the location of the shooter the way the muzzle blast would.

If you were looking for 100% stealth you'd want a very heavy bullet just below the speed of sound. .308 is not the best cartridge for this, but suppression still have its benefits even with supersonic ammo.

However, I have it on good authority that the M14 is not a particularly good suppressor platform.
 
Just for giggles: Have you ever seen anyone put a can on a 45/70 or similar rifle?
 
MechAg,

wasn't that the premise behind the 458 Socom?

Of course, you won't find an AR chambered for a 45-70...but it sure would get some eyebrows raised at the range. :evil:


D
 
Man, not this again.

The supersonic "crack" of the bullet is highly overrated. You do not need to use subsonic ammo in a rifle to make it quieter. Yes, subsonic is much quieter, but the "crack" is really more of a mild chuff.

And when you are getting shot at, you can locate muzzle blast, but you can't hardly locate the shooter by the sound of the bullet travelling faster than the speed of sound.

I shoot/sell lots of suppressors. The supersonic CRACK! is one of my least favorite internet myths.
 
I enjoy shooting subsonic cartridges. I have the 300 whisper, 338W, 510W and the 458 socom, as well as suppressors for all of them. The 300W and 458socom are loudest because they are on the ar15, which has lots of action noise. The 338 whisper is the best, followed by the 510 W. The 50 cal can is 2x18" though, rather big. The comparitive noise levels are all subjective by me ear, I do not have a good noise meter. I was also able to fit the 50 cal can to an enfield converted to 45 acp. 14" of the barrel is enclosed in the can, which ports into the barrel the last 6".

I am considering making a can for the my M1A, but it will have to wait until I finish one for my heavy barrel savage 308win. Large powder charges and action noise add up to noise levels that are not ear safe in the long run. The sonic boom does not seem to be much at all, just noticable, but then most of my hearing loss is in the higher frequencies, but I can hear between 0-15 decibels across the tested range even after 20 years in the Navy. Even if shooting does not hurt, it can still cause hearing loss.

Ranb
 
Mr. Moderator: I am very sorry if my question disturbed you. I have been a shooter and reloader for over 45 years, shot on the 6th Army Pistol team and have held a Master's Class Rating in CF pistol. Thierfore I feel I know my way around guns and just asked a simple question for something I did not know. For your comment, I have removed your name from my Christmas card list.:neener:
 
Last edited:
Loaded, dude, I'm hurt. :p

Seriously though, I'm an SOT, and a big part of my business is selling suppressors. I know a little tiny bit about guns too. :)
 
Perhaps I am dead-wrong, but as I understand it, the reason supersonic rounds present difficulties for supression has nothing to do with a sonic "crack", since the bullet exceeds the speed of sound inside the bore (from the time they leave the muzzle, they are only slowing down; this cannot be argued). The reason they are difficult to "silence" is that the bullet leaves the supressor long before all the sound waves have dissipated in the baffling of the supressor. The subsonic rounds more or less trap the sound waves behind them, forcing them to take other routes (namely, into the baffles of the supressor). With a supersonic round, the sound wave can move freely in a straight line of low resistance directly behind the bullet. In theory, one could nearly "silence" a supersonic round, but it would require an exceptionally (and impractically) large and long supressor. The faster the round, the longer the supressor would need to be.

A firearm silencer is not that far removed from an automotive muffler of straight-through design. And the theory behind silencing remains the same; the waves are deflected by baffles into absorbing material where they are trapped. Smaller (read, burning less powder) and slower rounds are supressed by more diminutive devices.
 
Nope. That isn't how it works at all. The expanding gasses are behind the bullet. The muzzle blast is negligable either way. Like I said, the noise is a chuff sound as the bullet travels through the air, and nothing when it is subsonic. If what you are saying is true, then my ear can't pick up the difference.

You guys who are pontificating, do me a favor and go shoot some modern suppressed guns. It is enlightnening.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top