Need 50 cal rifle noise reduction device.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ranb

Ranb

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2003
Messages
962
Location
WA, USA
The Kitsap Rifle and Revolver Club is being sued by Kitsap County and may be shut down due to noise and safety complaints by local residents. http://www.gunsafety.org/ Here is a link to the lawsuit; http://www.kitsapgov.com/pros/krrc.htm

There is a rumor that the lawsuit may be set aside if "they do something about those 50 caliber sniper rifles". The range is a "blue sky" range with berms and no baffles. They want to stay that way because it has bays used for IPSC (?) and other shooting events. Baffles may be installed on part of the range in the future.

The club also intends to buck the trend of restricting what calibers can be used there. So we are looking for a way to reduce noise at the range. Silencers are allowed to be owned in Washington State, but RCW 9.41.250 makes it a gross misdemeanor for anyone (police, dealers and military included) to use any device that reduces the report of a firearm. I still have to determine if a device not attached to the rifle would be legal.

I was asked to come up with some sort of dedicated shooting position for the muzzle brake equipped 50 caliber rifles to reduce the noise a bit. I have seen several designs over the years, but have no idea how effective they really are. Anyone have any suggestions? Thanks.

Ranb
 
Lots of guys over at castboolits.gunloads.com shoot reduced loads in their basements, seen lots of noise reduction and bullet catching ideas there. The one that sticks in my mind is a row of old tires in front of the shooting station. Muzzle in the tires, maybe a couple feet back from the downrange end of the row. Cool idea, free materials :D
 
Various forms of baffle can be effective, although nothing will silence the sonic boom.

My club recently enclosed the whole firing line on the back and roof, just a simple OSB covering and wall, with residential type doors spaced every 50' or so, and that significantly reduced noise heard by neighbors.

For your club, I would consider setting up one or a couple dedicated high-power rifle bays that would have a door (standard residential door), a skin of OSB or plywood, and perhaps lined with rigid foam insulation or fiberglass batting (effective but messy, ugly, and not likely to last long if exposed). If it encloses the firing position on all sides (including roof) other than downrange, it should greatly reduce noise heard off the property. You'll want noise insulation inside it so that the shooters don't get blasted extra. Wider will also be better for the shooters' comfort.

I can't imagine this would raise any legal issues, but I do not claim any expertise on the somewhat odd law you cited.
 
Maybe a 55 gallon drum suspended and lined with some kind of durable foam or other baffle material.

The old tires idea sounds like it may be a winner though.
 
I should have read the link first. It sounds like this has little or nothing to do with actual noise issues. I had mistakenly assumed this was a lawsuit from neighbors, not a local politician, and I note the "(D)" after the prosecutor's term in office.

Have you contacted the NRA to see about any legal defense help they can offer? This sounds like an instance to counterattack with all available (legal) means.
 
The club has a lawyer and has contacted the NRA and other organisations. The club is not affiliated with the NRA, but we may be able to obtain their help. While it is the county that is filing the lawsuit, the county DA is heading it up and has even passed along an 11 year old criminal case on one of the club members to a DA in another county to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. The lawsuit includes complains by neighbors of the noise and bullets leaving the range. While the range is very noisy at times, the bullet claims are unproven and the area was unoccupied when the club moved in back in 1926.

A person on The Firing Line pointed out this link; http://thehighroad.us/showthread.php?t=420448&highlight=muffler

It appears to be exactly what I need. It claims a 10 decibel reduction is possible. I like the enclosed high power shooting position too. Thanks guys.

Ranb
 
Google “noise measuring equipment” and see what a type 1 noise meter (a.k.a. a sound level meter) with impact noise capability, and upper range of at least 170 dB, costs. It’s going to be a lot, but I think there is a used market. You can also rent them some places, but I’m thinking you are going to need to experiment with noise reducing measures, and it is going to take you a few laps to get something that works.

I’m most familiar with highway noise reduction, those noise walls you see along highways. Even with decades of experience with these walls and dozens of studies, in order to predict how much noise reduction a given wall in a given location will give, it takes about 3 days of computer input and 3 hours of running the program. So I don’t think anyone can tell you what you have to build to get the degree of noise reduction you are looking for.

What people can give you are ideas you can try, and measure with a noise meter, to see how well they work. I would try the cheap ones first; lining up a row of used tires to shoot through sounds like the best one to try first.

Baffles were mentioned above. In general these work best for noise in a small frequency range, when the distance between the baffles is a multiple of the wave length of the noise. They work by having the noise echo (bounce) off the baffles 180 degrees phase shifted from the original noise source, so the waves cancel each other out. It will take some frequency measurements of the firearms that will be shot at the range, and some math to figure out the spacing and orientation for baffles that will work. For insulation, I think the average size of the air pockets in the insulation has to be set in realation to the wavelength of the noise you want to reduce, but I’m not sure.

As also mentioned above, your source of noise will be at the muzzle (the report) and also along the bullet path (the sonic boom.) An enclosure for the shooter and/or an enclosure to shoot through can (depending on materials and dimensions) reduce noise from the muzzle. Noise walls, berms or an enclosure along the entire bullet path is required to reduce noise from the sonic boom. (A berm is a wall of dirt.) Note for walls and berms the noise will go over the top, and any noise reduction will be in the “noise shadow” close to the wall/berm. At some distance (hundreds or a thousand feet) away from the wall/berm there will no appreciable noise reduction.

For highway noise, walls/berms work best when near the source or the receiver; they are least effective when half way in between. I’m thinking it is the same for gunfire noise. Also for highway noise, having a wall on each side of the highway can cause noise to echo (bounce) off of one wall and go over the top of the other one, increasing noise. Vertical walls are more effective then berms with sloping sides when you just have one. But berms with sloping sides echo the noise more up into the air and less over the adjacent wall/berm.
 
How long has the range been in place? Did these people move in (and around) a shooting range and expect it would be QUIET? All members should line up and shoot non stop for a month...8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Then the neighbors would appreciate the "down time" when there were no shooters on the range! :evil:

We have the same encroachment coming toward our range. It has been there since about 1947. There are about 250 members. We try to "make a little noise" on a regular basis...just so no one forgets we are in the neighborhood.

This range is 15 min. from my house. We can see downtown Nashville from the hill. Don't want to see this one go away!

Mark
 
We've had similar noise lawsuits from a different source - racing cars. In the first case, a track was built fairly recently and operated for a few years. There were complaints as no noise abatement devices were being used. The track eventually shut down when it sold (for a good profit) to the extremely wealthy landowner who was the main source of complaints. He was there first.

In the second case, a drag strip that had been operating since the 1950's in the middle of square miles of corn fields was sued by a recent new homeowner. The judge squashed it - the track had been there for 50 years, it's not their fault you didn't check what was in the neighborhood.

I'm not a lawyer, no doubt your's will present the case to the court with the established precedent that the range has been there since 1926. If anything, the fact that the DA in the county is bringing the suit, NOT a local resident, shows that this IS politically motivated.

It's time to make obvious efforts to build a coop feeder swine confinement facility upwind of the DA's property. :evil:
 
You could force the 50 cal shooters, and other noisy weapons (or all the firing positions) to stick their muzzles into a 10 foot stack of old airplane tires held in place by wooden racks. This really kills most of the whomp and ensures targeting the backstop so no bullets escape.
 
I saw something in an old Remignton Arms movie. They took old tires and lined them up so that the shooter was shooting through the center of the row. Maybe 20-30 tires. They were either stacked in some sort of trough or hung from a pipe or rod so that they acted like baffles of a silencer to eliminate or greatly reduce the muzzle blast. (on edge like cookies in a tray) You shoot through the 15" hole where the rim would be.

If you had something like that at a few shooting positions, the 50 cal boys could be relegated to those spots???
 
That is what the club is thinking about, but for now, there are no restrictions

Ranb
 
They can't have it both ways. Either they should allow suppressors in your state or not complain about the noise. That is possibly more common sense than a state government can handle........
 
They think they can. Some of my Reps and Senators even try to convince me that silencers are illegal in the USA or WA. While you might be surprised by this, they are elected by people (including gun owners) that believe this same crazy notion.

I have a hard time convincing some gun owners that silencers are legal to own without a license, so you can imagine how hard it is to convince an egotistical elected member of the legislature of the same thing. Then try to convince them that silencers serve a useful purpose for the sportsman instead of just for the military, police and criminals.

Ranb
 
This all sounds like really good advice. I don't know very much about shooting through tires or anything, but if you enclose the shooting area, pad the walls with fiberglass or the sound boards they sell to high school band rooms, and choose some way of shooting through tires/barrels/boxes, that should take care of it. Oh, and find a club member with a bulldozer and a truckload of dirt for bigger backstops. If you do that, I'm sure the judge would likely side with your club if it goes to court, as you have been there longer and you are making a conscious, active decision to alleviate neighborhood complaints. Logic pays off in court, as does a good lawyer, haha.

BTW, I'll be sure to remember some of these things for if/when a housing boom comes back to upstate NY and my club gets encroached on:)
 
I have a hard time convincing some gun owners that silencers are legal to own without a license
Click to expand...

Although the NFA hassles are not technically a license, they are so much trouble and expense that many people view them as equivalent to a license. The only real differences I see are (1) not having to renew for continuing ownership, and (2) not having to pass a knowledge test (although being able to complete the forms and get them approved would tend to indicate some level of NFA knowledge).

Alas in my state, for now, suppressors aren't legal for civilians regardless of NFA compliance.

Then try to convince them that silencers serve a useful purpose for the sportsman instead of just for the military, police and criminals.
Click to expand...

It seems to be only in the US that people have this bizarre idea that suppressors are used by or beneficial to criminals. I'm sure that the stupid 4" long, 110% effective silencers "seen" in movies lend to this. In so many other countries suppressors are seen as smart and just plain common courtesy. They are strongly encouraged in the UK, which is among the most anti-firearms nations in the developed world!
 
Although the NFA hassles are not technically a license, they are so much trouble and expense that many people view them as equivalent to a license.
Click to expand...

I do not see the tax stamp application as such. I see it as a routine matter that costs $200. When any adult living in one of the 38 states where they are legal can own one on demand as long as they can own a gun, it is not really a hassle. In fact I have never heard of anyone being denied as long as they could pass a NICS check and filled out the forms properly.

Ranb
 
There is a lot of misinformation on suppressors (let's use the correct name). I recently read a book where the author had the main character using one on a .45, and basically had it making as much noise as a kitten fart.
 
Part of that misinformation is that "suppressor" is the correct term for a device legally called a silencer or muffler by the US government. I prefer to use the word silencer in online and face to face communication because it makes it very clear that I am referring to a gun muffler. It is easier than saying sound suppressor. The word suppressor all by itself can mean a flash, recoil or sound suppressor. Although suppressor better describes what silencers do, most people use silencer on the applications required to pay the tax. No reason to risk getting the form sent back for using the wrong word. Some people report that the forms are approved using something other than silencer though.

I keep it simple and call them by the legal name to avoid confusion. When I had a meeting with my State representative and told her I wanted to discuss the suppressor use ban in WA, she asked if I meant silencers. I told her yes and continued to use silencer to avoid confusion.

Ranb
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GunnyUSMC
  • Locked
Muzzle devices ??
2 3 4
Replies
78
Views
5K
Blkhrt13
Blkhrt13
O
  • Locked
Rimfire rifle shooting at the range: Question
Replies
9
Views
749
Jim Watson
J
D
  • Locked
.50 cal DGR cartridges?
Replies
5
Views
969
Dane Burns
D
W
  • Locked
Recoil Reduction
Replies
20
Views
1K
1948CJ2A
1948CJ2A
Ranb
  • Locked
Finished my 50 cal silencer.
Replies
4
Views
986
Ranb
Ranb
Back
Top