Photo of bullet leaving muzzle

[UnforgivingMin]

Re: cameras capturing infrared light, if you have a digital camera with an LCD display, try pointing your TV remote at the camera and pressing one of the buttons. You'll see the IR from the remote on your camera's screen.

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'd like to see similar pics with a see-through suppressor attached.

 

[the naked prophet]

Yes, let's make a suppressor out of glass

I wonder about some sort of transparent ceramic, although single crystal ceramics tend to have low toughness. Things like single-crystal alumina (sapphire), in addition to being ridiculously expensive, are difficult to form into something like a suppressor. And any ceramics with higher toughness, like transformation-toughened zirconia (TTZ) use a fine-grained polycrystalline structure with a secondary phase that "pins" the grain boundaries and stops cracks from propagating. Fine grained crystal structures don't lend well to clarity.

Polymer would probably burn, melt, or bulge too much even for a single shot.

Glass might possibly work, if you could make it thick enough. It'd have to be very, very long to be half as effective as a modern metal suppressor though...

These are just guesses though, next thing I know someone will be posting photos of a transparent suppressor and laughing at me...

 

[Henry Bowman]

Lexan is incredibly strong and clear. The ends and baffles don't need to be clear. I expect that 1/4" thick sidewall of a Lexan tube would be as strong as the thin aluminum or steel tubes some suppressors are made of. I don't see why it wouldn't work for a few shot for the purpose of taking a picture (still would need a tax stamp).

 

[mattf.]

Re: cameras capturing infrared light, if you have a digital camera with an LCD display, try pointing your TV remote at the camera and pressing one of the buttons. You'll see the IR from the remote on your camera's screen.

Curiosity got the best of me here and I had to try it. Here is me pointing my remote at my webcam while holding down a button.

 

[loplop]

And I'll respectfully have to disagree too. The Browning shotgun is a long recoil design. Different animal. Shoot the wheelgun and the 1911 with the same ammo in a side-by-side comparison. It's even milder in the old skinny barrelled 1917 revolvers than it is in the 1911.

I just shot my S&W Model 22 (45 ACP) and my SIG P220 Carry side-by-side this weekend. I didn't have my 1911 out, so indulge my slightly different yet perhaps germane comparison.

TO ME, the S&W 22 "kicked" harder than the SIG. The perceived recoil is indeed different, as pointed out above: in a semiauto, perceived recoil is made up of more than one distinct action (setting off the charge, the slide cycling back and hitting the stop, etc), and it feels TO ME that the semiauto is "softer" in perceived recoil. This could be due to multiple factors, but my hand tells me that when shooting the revolver, it's the fact the entire recoil impulse is directed straight into my hand/arm directly after the cartridge is set off. The S&W kicks hard and fast, and drops back onto target quite quickly. There is a bit of a sting in my hand when I fire it alot. No such feel with the SIG or 1911; just a nice fat push and I'm back on target.

Perhaps that's best meant for another discussion.

Germane to the OP: that is one sweet photo find. Very, very cool. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Justin]

Great photo.

 

[1911Tuner]

re:

Quote:

>TO ME, the S&W 22 "kicked" harder than the SIG.<

Sharper...Yes. Shorter time frame. Yes. There's a solid, non-moving breechblock in the revolver. The autopistol spreads it out over a longer duration.
*************

And:

>There is a bit of a sting in my hand when I fire it alot. No such feel with the SIG or 1911; just a nice fat push and I'm back on target.<

Right again.
**********

And:

> perceived recoil is made up of more than one distinct action (setting off the charge, the slide cycling back and hitting the stop, etc), and it feels TO ME that the semiauto is "softer" in perceived recoil.<

Precisely. The autopistol's muzzle rise/upward torque is more defined because of the reciprocating slide that sits above the center of gravity.
When it smacks the frame, it tends to pivot the pistol. The amount of
muzzle flip from the actual "kick" of the round firing is identical, assuming identical weight guns...but the moving. impacting slide is what causes the difference.
**********

And finally:

>>Perhaps that's best meant for another discussion.<<

It is that. I was making observations on the picture...not trying to start a separate discussion. The difference in muzzle flip between a revolver and an autopistol of similar weight is already documented and measured via a Ransom Rest...but we can have us a fine ol' debate over it if someone wants to. Just start it on another thread.