Talk:Silencer (firearms)

Accusation of politcal smearing and unrelevance

I removed this sentence from the end of the article: "Chinese communists didn't think much of the POW-Status, anyhow." First of all, it seemed utterly unrelated to its context. Second, it sounds like a political smear. The person who contributed it also mentioned "Bonaparte Napoleon" and said "During the late 1950's the PLA has procured...."

Doesn't seem like an POW or opinion to me. It's written pretty "conversationly"-like, but, hey, it's an edit by a human, allright. We tend to do that - gettin' personal. Anyhows; If it were a fact that Chinese 'Communists' (I say that, 'cuz I don't believe they were actually any genuine) or more like Socialists didn't ipso factos think of the POW-Status in truth, then it's a fact - and an article needs facts if it's relevant, so why not keep it there and/or add it back? This also goes for PLA's "procuration" in the 50's. Just let it go. No need to steam. And what's that with Bonaparte Napoleon?-OleMurder 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with England and Finland's alleged tolerance on silencers

---

I find this slightly misleading:

> In some nations, such as England or Finland, they are practically unregulated and may be bought "over the counter" in retail stores.

as you cannot buy hand-guns under *any* circumstances in England and the UK. This negates the need for supressor regulation as suppressors are next to useless there. However, I'm not quite sure what one could put instead. Hmmm...

Ah, but suppressors work just fine on subsonic rifles. .22 Long Rifle ammo is wildely available in reduced power, subsonic loadings, and Aguila now makes a subsonic loading using a 60 grain bullet (in a .22 Short case, to .22 Long Rifle OAL) that produces full power. A Ruger 10/22 or 77/22 with an integral suppressor that's .920" in outside diameter (the same as a heavy barrel) is quite popular, and (the 77/22 at least) still legal in the UK, if the paperwork doesn't kill you.--scot 20:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Suppressors are very useful on rifles, subsonic or not. Despite the supersonic crack, a good suppressor will bring the noise of a .223 rifle down to about that of a .22LR -- that is, quiet enough to shoot comfortably without hearing protection.--70.160.160.175 08:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference in the Geneva or Hauge conventions prohibiting the use of suppressed firearms. I'll search a bit more, then I'm yanking the bit about them being prohibited in warfare until someone comes up with a solid reference. scot 03:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

> "The MP5 and Mark 23 chamber 9 mm Luger and .45 ACP rounds, respectively. Both of these ammunition types have subsonic muzzle velocities" - Most 9mm rounds are NOT subsonic. Geoff B 20:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

While handgun ammunition in 9mm often uses lighter bullets, with the 124 grain being the NATO choice, and 115 grain being popular for defensive use, most 9mm submachinegun ammo is loaded with a 147 grain bullet, which is subsonic in short SMG and pistol barrels. Incidentally, the 147 grain 9mm bullet gives a sectional density nearly idential to that of the 230 grain .45 ACP, and both run at similar velocities, around 900 fps. scot 21:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's for law enforcement use, yep, but the poor armour penetration and less effective terminal ballistics means it's not the usual round for military use. Besides, the issue is that the article states that 9mm is subsonic, full stop. Geoff B 06:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, the article is fixed. I think the reason that the military uses 147 grain loads in the SMGs is that the 147 should give better penetration due to the higher sectional density; armor penetration isn't really an issue, typical handgun ammo doesn't really do the job--hence the 5.7x28mm and the 4.7mm H&K PDW, the .224 BOZ and the like, which are designed to concentrate the force of impact on the smallest possible area, then tumble after entry to make up for the small, non-expanding bullet. Of course, those calibers would be useless subsonic, as they have all their penetrating power in velocity, not mass...--scot 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The corsican connection

- The story about Napoleon vs. silenced firearm is found in a german article by K. Maleyka in 1937, saying that the Girandoni reservoir air rifle saw action against Napoleon and that he issued orders for the execution of Austrian soldiers found carrying airguns.

While the story exists, and dates back that far, it is false. "Careful investigation has shown that the oft-told tale, originated in a German article by K. Maleyka in 1937, that the Girandoni air rifle saw action against Napoleon and that he issued orders for the execution of Austrian soldiers found carrying airguns is just not true. These rifles were used in the Wars of the First Coalition against revolutionary France from 1792 to 1797 and also were used in Turkey and Hungary." from http://www.beemans.net/400%20Years%20of%20Tradition.htm. Also, the big advantage of the air rifle over the muskets was the lack of smoke, not the lack of sound. Large bore precharged pneumatics are LOUD, easily as loud as a musket although not as loud as a modern high powered rifle. Check out barnespneumatic.com, he handmakes large bore precharged pneumatic rifles that are functionally similar to the Girandoni airguns. scot 16:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

- BTW the reservoir airgun used by Lewis & Clark expedition has been found and identified in April 2005!

Article contradicts itself

Hi, I don't know which one of these is right but I know they can't both be. From the top: The near silent suppressed firearms seen in movies and television is pure fabrication; the most effective suppressors at most reduce sound to the level of a cough. Later on: Guns with the least 'leakage' are best, so a sealed breech (e.g. bolt action) is preferable and can be suppressed to the point that it makes only a "click" as the firing pin or hammer hits the primer. Which one is correct? Triddle 19:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Both, sort of. The sound of the hammer falling is much more audible than the sound of the gas escaping from an effective (i.e. large) suppressor on a smallbore rifle. But in movies and TV, they never show effectively suppressed rifles, they show either pistols with tiny silencers, or moderately sized silencers on high powered rifles or SMGs. I'll add a bit to both statements to make that more clear. scot 19:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

I think I'm starting to understand but the article still seems misleading to me. I'll try my best to explain how I am interpreting it. The key is really in the first paragraph and specifically the sentence dealing with the movie suppressor. The last sentence left a thought that the gas expansion would still be heard (apparently the cough described here is the mechanical action of the weapon and not the gas expansion?). I believe this stems from the way a suppressor is inaccurately portrayed in the movies; you never heard the sound of the mechanical bits, always some sort of magical sharp "shooooop" noise. This is apparently what mislead me. Is this right? If so let me know and I'll try my hand at rewriting it too. Triddle 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There will always be at least some sound; a suppressor works on exactly the same principle as a muffler, and while you can attenuate most of the sound, there's still some low frequency (and thus much less noticable) sound of firing left. Almost all suppressors depicted in film are on semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, or high powered rifles; those on handguns are tiny--barely adequate for a .22 rimfire. For anything bigger than a .22, you need a much bigger can; an effective suppressor for a .380 ACP is about the size of a 12 oz. soda can (usually longer and thinner, but same interior volume). For a .45 ACP, it's closer to twice that. For the rifle, it would remove all flash, but would still make a lot of noise (more than an unsuppressed .22 Long Rifle) and you'd still have the sonic boom of the supersonic bullet. By all means try to make it clearer, and I'll make sure you don't introduce any factual errors. scot 20:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

One Hollywood film that accurately portrays the sound of a suppressed weapon is the Stallone film "Assassins." From 10 feet away, most of the perceived sound from an integrally suppressed .22 like the Ruger MKII comes from cycling the action, the sound is very similar to a nail gun. Even quieter if you have a mechanism that locks the action into single shot. I was surprised, however, to find that the quietest suppressed handgun I had ever heard was a WWII 9 mm Luger with a wet can attached to the barrel, using subsonic ball ammo. Quieter than a .22. So quiet it was eerie ... and yes, the action still cycled. The wet can was about 1 inch in diameter by 6 inches long, very high quality. You don't need a soda can sized wet OR dry can for a 9 mm or even a .45, several manufacturers like GEMTECH or AWC provide suppressors for the larger calibers that are still reasonably small. Exdmd 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Effectivnes

How much weapons loose on its effectivnes by puting a suppressor?

Depends on the suppressor design and the cartridge. Normally supersonic cartridges like the 9x19mm generally use a ported barrel to reduce the velocity to subsonic (generally 950 f/s or lower, to avoid supersonic flow around the bullet) and this can significantly reduce the bullet energy. Some suppressor designs use rubber "wipes" that have holes smaller than the bullet diameter, which contract after the bullet passes to reduce the gas flow through the bullet's path. These can significantly effect the accuracy of the round. A suppressor that does not use a ported barrel or wipes will have no ballistic effect on the bullet.

I believe it will change your point of impact. But that just means you need to compensate for the change POI or rezero your sights 65.8.94.145 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The presence of a supressor changes the operating characteristics of semiautomatic and automatic firearms as well; the mass of the suppressor can interfere with recoil operated firearms, and the constriction at the muzzle will increase the residual pressure and increase the forces that operate blowback and gas operated firearms. Devices such as "recoil enhancers" are used to decouple the mass of the suppressor in short recoil designs, and an adjustment to the gas port may be neccessary in a gas operated firearm. Blowbacks aren't really adjustable, except by altering the mass of the bolt, so careful cartridge selection is probably the best way to reduce the risk of high pressure in the chamber when the barrel opens. An efficient suppressor will probably have enough internal volume to hold most of the powder gas, so residual pressures will probably not change much. scot 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suppressors in the UK

See this.

While firearms are hard to get (And handguns impossible, to the extent the British Olympic pistol team trains in France) if you have one of the lesser regulated firearms (shotgun or an air rifle (many of which are reguarded as firearms under UK law), getting a suppressor for it is easy. scot 14:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge with flash suppressor

I tagged both articles mergewith. As far as I can tell, flash suppressors do not necessarily do anything for sound, and suppressors (silencers) usually reduce muzzle flash. --Christopherlin 16:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. Silencers and flash suppressors have different purposes, different designs, and different effects. The only point of similarity is that both of them reduce muzzle flash. --Carnildo 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger--while sound suppressors also eliminate flash, that's entirely a side effect. The purpose of a flash suppressor is to reduce, from the shooter's point of view, the amount of muzzle flash; this is done by allowing the escaping gas to mix with air, completing the combustion and reducing the temperature to reduce the size of the "fireball". Flash suppressors not only fail to reduce the sound, but actually increase the sound of firing to observers to teh side, by spreading the escaping gasses to the sides and increasing the audible sound of firing to the sides of the shooter (muzzle brakes are worse--they direct the gasses backwards, greatly increasing the sound levels the shooter experiences). Modern flash suppressors are very efficiently designed to reduce the flash to tolerable levels in a very light and compact package, using carefully designed ports to direct the escaping gasses to provide optimum mixing with the air. A cross-link between the articles is probalby a good idea, however, since they are related in that both attempt to reduce the signature of a firearm. scot 19:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I also disagree. See my comment at Talk:Flash suppressor.--Tronno 21:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Supressor vs Silencer

We just had a page revert,; someone at 67.189.43.119 added "(and incorrectly)" between "supressors, also commonly" and "known as silencers" in the intro sentence, and then User:Kintetsubuffalo reverted.

In my opinion, based on the professional literature and discussions with supressor users and manufacturers, is that unknown editor at 67.189.43.119 is correct. See for example the article section Supressor#Supressors and Silencers which I added on March 11 2006.

I am going to revert back to unknown-at-67.189.43.119's last edit with "(and incorrectly)" inserted, as I believe it to be an accurate contribution per above. Georgewilliamherbert 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

FWIW: While the name overstates the functional capability of the device, 'Silencer' was the term coined by the device's inventor Hiram Percy Maxim. --D.E. Watters 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

True (I think, I have heard so but don't recall a reference), but modern technical usage has evolved away from his terminology. If you can provide a reference and want to add a note to the effect that that's what he called them, that would be fine by me. Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The first reference in H.P. Maxim's patents of the term 'silencer' is on Page 3 Line 88 of US Patent #958,934. He previously used the term 'silencing device' in that patent and the earlier #916,885 patent. Many of his later 'silencer' patents are assigned to the Maxim Silencer Company, previously the Maxim Silent Firearms Company. --D.E. Watters 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Was "silencer" a trademark? That might explain the use of "suppressor", and also the American/British split on "muffler" vs. "silencer". scot 16:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the term "silencer" over "suppressor" and I think I can back up my reasons for this. Firstly, Hiram Maxim called his invention a silencer. Secondly, the US Government (in the National Firearms Act) refers to this device as a "firearm silencer". Thirdly, the common usage among ordinary people -- not firearms specialists -- is strongly in favor of "silencer". Fourthly, the term "suppressor" without qualification is vague, since it could easily refer to a flash suppressor, or even possibly a recoil suppressor (i.e. muzzle brake). Tony Belding 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. Professional usage of the terms is extremely clearly in favor of supressor. We are trying to inform and clarify people's understanding, not perpetuate the "silencer" myth. Georgewilliamherbert 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually would like to see the entire page renamed "Silencer (Firearm)" The original inventor used the term, the NFA of 1934 uses the term "muffler or silencer," the ATF Form 4 uses the term silencer, the NRA's firearm Glossary uses "Silencer", and the SAAMI Glossary has the term "Silencer." It seems Silencer IS the common term with it sometimes being called a "Supressor" or a "Sound Supressor." Reflux 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Photo

I can't figure out where an appropriate place for this photo would be in this article, but if you guys would like it:

I have a couple more photos from that range session if you'd like alternatives. --UNHchabo 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiram Maxim

The picture of the silencer for Hiram Maxim's patentg was an earlier design that made gases swirl around, but was actually later rejected by him for being too complex. AllStarZ 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppressors in video games

I really don't see the point in this list. I'm sure there are tons more video games with suppressors than what are in the list. Perhaps there should be a category on it but I don't see any point in listing them in this article. --Ortzinator 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is cruft and should be moved (or removed). --D.E. Watters 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Also agreed. It doesn't really add anything to the article that couldn't be added by simply saying "Suppressors are often featured/used in video games." Almost any video games that feature firearms, also feature suppressors. Cloaked Dagger 05:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think that was plenty of time for anyone to object. I went ahead and removed it. --Ortzinator 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, I was about to do the same, but it looks like you beat me too it Cloaked Dagger 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good removal. I agree. Reflux 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppressors in fiction

I'm looking at removing this section for the same reason as the other, though I am unsure this time. So I'd like some opinions. --Ortzinator 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvised

"It is widely believed that suppressors can be improvised with any baffling material. Such attempts are only marginally useful, have a very short lifespan even if effective, and are often dangerous to the user.

...

The overwhelming majority of improvised suppressors popularized by movies and television (plastic bottles stuffed with insulation, potatoes, pillows, etc) do nothing to dampen a gun blast."

This is entirely untrue. According to Modern Firearm Silencers and Sporting And Tactical Silencers, Vol. 1 (Silencer History And Performance) (Paperback), amongst other resources. There are also several commonly found books on this subject, though I do not know if they are legitimate.

What is true is that many such suppressors do, usually, have a short lifespan.

Plastic bottles do not need to be stuffed with insulation. The escaping gases expand within them, and the outside material acts as a wipe. Small amounts of liquid within them may act as wet function. The disadvanges here are the size and temporary usage. (One popular example of this was a reverse screw on that fit on threaded barrels for these bottles, however this was banned -- one of the above sources cites this.)

One of the above sources also shows multiple forms of improvised suppressors. The design is simple enough that this is trivial to do. One example which was stated as being 'particuliarly and surprisingly effective' was a drug dealer's pvc model that used cardboard cut side by side for the baffling.

Never heard of potatoes being used for a suppressor. That would not work, theoretically. A two liter bottle was used in at least one movie (some Jim Belushi movie). I believe there was a milk carton full of milk used in another. Theoretically, that should dampen the sound. A pillow probably would work (ala, Godfather), but never heard of that tested.

Legal Status

Under "Legal Status, the article says:

In the United States, it is legal in most states for an individual to possess and use a suppressor

However, under Improvised, we see

Even suppressors intended for paintball markers, while providing no functionality for firearms, are illegal in the United States.

Can someone confirm one way or the other, and resolve the contradiction?

Septegram 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Even suppressors intended for paintball markers, while providing no functionality for firearms, are illegal in the United States." should read "Even suppressors intended for paintball markers, while providing no functionality for firearms, are highly restricted or illegal in the United States." scot 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Meeooowww!!!

"... the player can use a live Cat as a silencer on their weapon. None of these methods are effective in real life."

Can we have a reference to the government tests which demonstrated the uselessness of feline suppressors? — 84.65.71.50 22:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A Google search yielded this[1]. 64.90.198.6 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon

This article specifically talks about the history of suppressors, not silent weapons. Furthermore, there is confusion about the definition of "silent", as anything ranging from a throwing weapon like a slingshot or a knife is "silent". Removing section on Napoleon's encounters with air rifles, re-add at your own pleasure if you can find a better way to phrase it. 74.112.49.141 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Metallic?

The article states that suppressors are metallic, but this isn't necessarily true. Some, for example, are polymer. In fact, an awful lot of them are made of non-metallic polymers.MVMosin 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I also would like to note that the particular sentence I am referring to says that they are "generally" metallic and cylindrical. While I don't think the cylindrical thing will be argued at all, (unless we get in to geometric pedantry) this is a particularly bad way of making a statement for an enclopedia article without a specific source, not only to verify the statement itself, but to define for the reader what exactly "generally" is.MVMosin 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not possible. It is possible to cite individual examples, such as the all polymer suppressors made for .22 LR guns, and while I know of no suppressors that are not housed in cylindrical housings, there is no reason they have to be--mufflers for internal combustion engines are often elliptical in cross-section, and there's no reason that wouldn't work for a firearm suppressor. However, unless you have a source for for statistical information on all suppressors, with information on composition or shape, then you can't provide anything more specific than statements like "most" or "many". Any other statement would be untrue or unverifiable. scot 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a rectangular suppressor: http://www.streetpro.com/usp/hksocom.html Still looking for a maker of all polymer ones. scot 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Carbon fiber models for airguns: http://www.chambersgunmakers.co.uk/Silencers.htm scot 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, one of the primary sources (the Paulson book "Silencer History and Performance: Vol 1") lists all-plastic Voere suppressors for .22, and plastic-internals, metal-can models as well. Consider it sourced. The airgun models above don't count, they would likely fail if used for real firearms. The rectangular SOCOM model is real (was one of the Offensive Handgun Project designs that lead to the HK Mark 23 and the winning cylindrical Knight's suppressor).

While the airgun moderators aren't intended for firearm use, they probably would survive a rimfire rifle; some playing with my internal ballistics software shows over 200 psi muzzle pressure from a CO2 pistol (roughly a Crosman 1008), and a bit over 325 psi for an 18" .22 Long Rifle and subsonic ammo. And of course the BATFE would probably consider that airgun moderator a "firearm silencer" even if it disintegrated upon firing, and the Brits consider a lot of airguns to be firearms, so you're in a gray area anyway... scot 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's more than just pressure; it's temperature and gas velocity as well. You'd have to check what the composite filler was for those CF components and see what its melting temp and erosion properties are. The Voere suppressors, for example, last ok on a .22 rifle but not as long on a .22 pistol. Georgewilliamherbert 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "generally" is still the right wording. There are a very few counterexamples, but 99.9% plus of all suppressor models, and all suppressors sold, are metallic and cylindrical. Georgewilliamherbert 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "generally" is the right wording, but that is subjective to the meaning of generally. Generally could mean 50%, or 60%, 80% or as you said, 99.9%. Whether generally is right or not isn't the issue, but generally is a border-line weasel word and should either be defined or changed.MVMosin 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)