Hkmp5sd
Member
So, would a device that doesn't "muffle" the report of a firearm shot, but leaves the dB constant and merely alters the frequency to a point humans cannot hear it, meet ATF's definition of "silencer/suppressor"?
Rifle 'silencers'
- Thread starter Stand_Watie
- Start date
- Status
Sylvilagus Aquaticus
Member
The Credit where Credit is Due and Greatly Deserved Category....
Thank you Schuey!
You are an amazing public service.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Thank you Schuey!
You are an amazing public service.
Regards,
Rabbit.
MLC
Member.
WhiteKnight
Member
It's a design by a UK manufacturer and is called the Lapwood Husher.
See Here
How it works
Unfortunately it didn't score too well in testing:
Test Table one (full Bore).
Moderator Tested dB Level
PES T12 S/S, .223 123.8
PES Ali, Silent Stalker, .223 125.1
PES Small Muzzle,. 223 125.8
PES Large Muzzle,.223 125.8
Reflex T8,.223 124.9
Vaimeco,.223 126.0
Husher 1, .223 127.0
Husher 2, 6mm PPC 128.3
Husher 2 Plus/Plus, 6mm PPC 127.0
No Moderator .223 (subsonic rounds) 130.6
Fully Suppressed .308 (subsonic) 120.1
Fully suppressed 7.62 x 39 (subsonic rounds) 121.9
as well as rimfire testing
Test Table Two (.22 Rimfire).
Moderator Tested dB level Ammunition
Sound Biter 97.1 PMC subs
Sako 93.5 " "
Husher 1 98.5 " "
PES Ali Silent Stalker 89.5 Winchester Subs
PES Ali Silent Stalker 87.6 PMC subs
PES Ali Silent Stalker 109.3 Stingers
22LR no moderator 103.6 PMC subs
22LR no moderator 119.0 Stingers
10/22 Fully Suppressed 86.5 PMC subs
Percy Engineering - very informative
husher
Thanks for the link.
Looking ot over, seems like a pretty 'usual' suppressor design to me. I was brainstorming something with an actual whistle, like a dog whistle or something, attached/built into the body of the device- something with another hole or port for gas to escape besides the projectile opening.
Maybe if each hole in a Le vang style brake was a whistle, except direct it outwards or back towards the shooter so as not to send the whistle noise out towards the target.
This hole or series of holes would simply use the energy of the soundwave to make a whistle noise. or maybe a supersonic (and thus not audible to humans) noise first, then a low-frequency noise which is audible but wont travel very well compared to a high frequency noise.
It could be directed in a radius from the device to divide the energy between them and make each one less loud, although the total decibel level would be the same, thus avoiding makeing the device a legal 'silencer'.
Or direct them all downward to be absorbed by the ground, or upwards to head for the sky- all to reduce the frontwards 'toward-the-target' signature without actually silencing anything.
Think THEY would allow its unlimited manufacture and distribution?
I think my sound 'redirector' is a great idea.
I just dont have anything like the skill to make it reality.
C-
Thanks for the link.
Looking ot over, seems like a pretty 'usual' suppressor design to me. I was brainstorming something with an actual whistle, like a dog whistle or something, attached/built into the body of the device- something with another hole or port for gas to escape besides the projectile opening.
Maybe if each hole in a Le vang style brake was a whistle, except direct it outwards or back towards the shooter so as not to send the whistle noise out towards the target.
This hole or series of holes would simply use the energy of the soundwave to make a whistle noise. or maybe a supersonic (and thus not audible to humans) noise first, then a low-frequency noise which is audible but wont travel very well compared to a high frequency noise.
It could be directed in a radius from the device to divide the energy between them and make each one less loud, although the total decibel level would be the same, thus avoiding makeing the device a legal 'silencer'.
Or direct them all downward to be absorbed by the ground, or upwards to head for the sky- all to reduce the frontwards 'toward-the-target' signature without actually silencing anything.
Think THEY would allow its unlimited manufacture and distribution?
I think my sound 'redirector' is a great idea.
I just dont have anything like the skill to make it reality.
C-
MLC
Member.
I think that the Russian AN94 has a high freqency whistle muzzle unit.
Perhaps Max Popenker can pop his head in and confirm.
Perhaps Max Popenker can pop his head in and confirm.
Ok, so we all have at least a vague understanding of silencers/suppressors. These videos (http://www.swrmfg.com/video/omega1.asp) seem to show the difference, in a suppressed rifle, between super sonic and sub-sonic ammo. Even with super sonic ammo the silenced rifle seems considerably quieter then without a suppressor and the sub-sonic ammo is quieter still.
What are the practical applications of sub-sonic rifles?
What are the practical applications of sub-sonic rifles?
Benton
Member
The practical applications, for me, are being able to shoot without disturbing anyone else. This has become especially useful because more and more "city folk" keep moving into my once rural area, and they are easily alarmed by the sound of rifle shots. A long afternoon of shooting gets them annoyed. When the only opportunity for me to shoot comes on the weekends, they are more likely to be around also. Other times I only have time to shoot at night, on targets under flood lights. Without a suppressor, I'd never be able to get in any shooting as I'd have everyone awake and upset. As it is now, I don't even awake anyone in my household when I sit on the porch and run through a box of ammo.
It is also nice to be able to shoot without ear plugs or muffs. No more pushing ear wax deeper into my ear channel, or headaches from the constant pressure on my skull from headphones. The shooting doesn't even disturb the songbirds or deer that are usually about.
There are practical applications for law enforcement using suppressors, but these don't apply to me. If only hunting were allowed with them in my state, I'd be very pleased. Then I'd be able to have the safety of being more aware of my surroundings, not disturb every living creature in the area, and preserve my hearing.
It is also nice to be able to shoot without ear plugs or muffs. No more pushing ear wax deeper into my ear channel, or headaches from the constant pressure on my skull from headphones. The shooting doesn't even disturb the songbirds or deer that are usually about.
There are practical applications for law enforcement using suppressors, but these don't apply to me. If only hunting were allowed with them in my state, I'd be very pleased. Then I'd be able to have the safety of being more aware of my surroundings, not disturb every living creature in the area, and preserve my hearing.
The term "suppressor" is used on the theory that the sound of a firearm cannot be totally silenced. Probably true, but the Maxim comes darned close.
I have been reliably informed that an original Maxim silencer ("suppressor" if you insist) on a Model 1903 rifle firing M2 ball reduces the noise enough that the sound of the firing pin is more noticeable than the sound of the shot. Many suppressors on SMGs reduce the sound enough that the bolt slap is very apparent, the M3 SMG being an example of an especially noisy weapon. In use, both the M3 and the STEN receivers were covered with sound deadening material to eliminate that noise.
I can also point out that it is not really necessary to silence the gun or to eliminate the sound of the shot. It is enough to change the sound so it doesn't sound like a shot. In fact, merely reducing the noise is not enough; making a .45 machinegun sound like a .22 machinegun is not really good enough in most circumstances.
Of course the Maxim silencer made today would cost a pile of money; I am not sure anyone is actually making them the way Maxim did.
Jim
I have been reliably informed that an original Maxim silencer ("suppressor" if you insist) on a Model 1903 rifle firing M2 ball reduces the noise enough that the sound of the firing pin is more noticeable than the sound of the shot. Many suppressors on SMGs reduce the sound enough that the bolt slap is very apparent, the M3 SMG being an example of an especially noisy weapon. In use, both the M3 and the STEN receivers were covered with sound deadening material to eliminate that noise.
I can also point out that it is not really necessary to silence the gun or to eliminate the sound of the shot. It is enough to change the sound so it doesn't sound like a shot. In fact, merely reducing the noise is not enough; making a .45 machinegun sound like a .22 machinegun is not really good enough in most circumstances.
Of course the Maxim silencer made today would cost a pile of money; I am not sure anyone is actually making them the way Maxim did.
Jim
There was an article in the Small Arms Review last year about this time on an actual Maxim suppressor that has been in continuous use for almost 100 years. It was sold to a slaughter house originally. The slaughter house has been a family business ever since and the pistol and suppressor have been used daily for several generations. I believe it is on a pistol chambered in .22 LR. The pistol itself is unique. The author believed that it was a one of a kind that was built and sold with that suppressor. The author of the article tested the suppressor against other modern suppressors and it was close to, but not quite as good as something manufactured yesterday.
Maxim certainly had his act together way back then. But his designs arn't as good as the stuff being made today, although they hold their own.
Maxim certainly had his act together way back then. But his designs arn't as good as the stuff being made today, although they hold their own.
mylesd
Member
I have a couple questions... First of all, if I wanted to put a silencer on my rem. 700 PSS how would I go about doing that??? That would be a nifty little toy. I presume you would have to have some kind of threading wouldnt you? Same as the AR right? Just get a preban upper with the threading? The other question is, what is the life of these things? Do they ever wear out? It seems that they are going under an awful lot of stress from the gas being released. Ive heard they wear out after 500 - 1000 rounds. In that case, whats the point of getting one? Does the sound suppression degrade after time as well? BTW, those videos were awesome!
Hkmp5sd
Member
Depends on the type of suppressor. Some are good for only a few shots and some are basically indestructable.
mylesd
Member
Could you elaborate a little more??? What type would be indestructible and what type would only last a couple shots??? That doesnt make a whole lot of sense for one to last only a few shots. THX
Hkmp5sd
Member
Negative - Maxim himself ALSO designed the first automobile muffler, and he did so AFTER his firearm silencer.
Some pistol silencers are designed with rubber or plastic "wipes" which the bullet actually penetrates on the way out. They make an airtight seal with the bullet and are therefore very very quiet - but they're toast in a couple of magazines and must be replaced before the can will be quiet again.
However, no modern rifle silencer uses wipes and they will all last many thousands of rounds. The most durable cans are made entirely of Inconel like the Knights Armament NT4. Others simply use inconel for the first baffle (the "blast baffle") which takes the brunt of the abuse from hot gases. Stainless steel (304 or 316 or 17-4) are also excellent materials for suppressor durability. Titanium is significantly lighter but not nearly as durable - only consider a Ti can for a bolt-action rifle that will not see heavy firing schedules. If it's for a semi- or full-auto rifle, inconel and stainless is the way to go. Also look for fully-welded cans, in which the baffle stack is welded together AND the stack is welded to the tube. These are stronger. A good, welded, inconel/stainless can, like those sold by Advanced Armament or Knight's Armament, should last at least 20-30,000 rounds of reasonable semi-auto fire.
Zak Smith
Member
Please Note The Dates On These Posts.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
