Supressor question

[unspellable]

I'm well aware that a supressor does nothing for the noise from a revolver cylinder gap or the sonic crack from a supersonic bullet, but how much would a supressor reduce overall noise in such a case? I'm thinking more in terms of hearing protection since plugs & muffs have questionable adequacy for the louder firearms.

 

[Sam1911]

It will help. It will not be hearing-safe.

I've fired 9mm subsonic through a can that was hearing-safe, and then loaded a mag of 124 gr. higher-velocity stuff and regretted it from the first shot. That sonic crack is not hearing safe.

A cyl-barrel gap just makes it that much worse.

I don't know why you'd say plugs and muffs have questionable adequacy. Good muffs will be enough for most guns, and even big bore rifles are tamed if you use plugs AND muffs.

Makes a lot more sense than adding an expensive and awkward and ineffective 'can to a gun that doesn't really work well with one.

 

[unspellable]

Hearing protection

There are a number of sources claiming ear muffs & plugs are not adequate for the louder firearms. I have to agree with this, Guy next to me on the indoor range had a 357 revolver and I found it much too loud even with muffs & plugs combined and with a booth wall between us..

I'm not thinking of the supressorr alone but in combination with muffs & plugs.

For example, I have a 445 SuperMag revolver. The barrel is already threaded at the muzzle so no modification would be needed to add a can.

I don't know of any definitive sources for how much noise the cylinder gap contributes versus the muzzle.

I would think muffs & plugs would be adequate for the sonic crack considered alone.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

An added hazard to trying to suppress a revolver would be from an increase in gases at the cylinder gap due to the back pressure of the suppressor. Normally, the revolver attains a certain level of developing pressure that is quickly relieved at the muzzle. A suppressor traps and holds a significant part of the muzzle blast, but higher pressure than normal is going to be expelled at the cylinder gap. Even on semi autos with a semi-locked breech, there is some additional gases expelled, and shooters notice it, as they get some in the face with some weapons.

 

[rjrivero]

Sharps, if that is true, then why aren't longer barrels on revolvers a concern for said "overpressure" conditions? Not saying you're wrong, but just wondering.

The blow back on semi autos is because the mechanism unlocks while the pressure in the suppressor/barrel is still relatively high.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

You may be right, but consider that the cylinder gap is always unlocked. We won't know what happens on a revolver until someone tries it. I know it's been done on a Nagant, but then on those, the gap is sealed at the moment of firing. Let's guess the difference in pressure may not be more than a .357 cylinder gap's blast when a .38 +P is fired from a suppressed revolver.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Sharps, if that is true, then why aren't longer barrels on revolvers a concern for said "overpressure" conditions?

Because the suppressor traps the gasses. There's always some blow-back with suppressed guns. With a revolver, it will concentrate and blow back in your face. Honestly, with something like a .38 or 9mm revolver, I don't think it would be horrible. A full-power .357 mag on the other hand would be unpleasant.