|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
April 13, 2014, 08:50 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
If you have a .22 revolver, a quick way to prove it to yourself would be pretty simple.
Stick a 2 liter pop bottle on the end of it and seal it up good with tape. The 2 liter does a pretty go job of suppressing the .22's for the first couple of shots, any other noise you hear, will be coming from the cylinder gap. |
April 13, 2014, 09:02 AM | #27 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
On a semi-auto there is no clear, open gap in the chamber like there is on a revolver. The closest thing is a blow-back operated semi-auto; but -- while those tend to be noticeably louder when suppressed than locked-breech semi-autos -- by the time the brass is extracted enough to allow a lot of gas to escape the chamber area, the pressure has dropped and the gas has cooled considerably to the point where it's not terribly loud. Suppressors produce considerable back-pressure; a single round from my Octane 9 gets my Glock 19 host dirtier than scores of rounds shot un-suppressed. But by the time the back-pressure comes out of the chamber, the bullet is long gone and the gas pressure and heat has dropped considerably. But with a revolver the cylinder gap is always open, and therefore the amount of gas escaping the cylinder gap would be magnified with a silencer attached, and that gas would all be hot, high-pressure gas that hasn't had time to slow down and cool. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." Last edited by Theohazard; April 13, 2014 at 11:26 AM. |
|||||
April 13, 2014, 01:49 PM | #28 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
At this point, no one in this thread has ANY experience with a suppressed standard revolver. Even people who have worked with lots of suppressors. So this is just a bad physics argument between two points of view. Most people say the cylinder gap is too big a leak to ever be quiet enough for a suppressor to be useful. I say that the cylinder gap is just another leak in a system that terminates with 9mm hole aligned with the bore. Given that it isn't at all a sealed system, and energy loss to cylinder gaps are known, why are you all so certain that a silencer on a revolver is useless? I'm sorry I'm not buying the argument that we know "because its obvious" or "because no one does it". Government agencies DID do it, so it must have done something. And this is not my assertion to prove. "You can't silence a revolver" is just another one of those firearms "common knowledge" things that is repeated so often that everyone now accepts it as fact, and piles on to anyone who says "Prove it". It's little different than the lead bullets in polygonal barrel thing. Just because Glock's weird 1982 polygonal barrel doesn't like lead, it doesn't mean that all those HKs that have been using polygonal barrels since the '60s are retroactively dangerous. A good 9mm suppressor will take subsonic 9mm from 165 down to 125 dB, but .45 has trouble getting down below 140 dB - because it has a bigger hole running through the suppressor. So all the "leaks" in the system matter, but no one here can quantify how much a cylinder gap is worth compared to an extra 2mm of bore diameter. I'd be willing to bet that a 3" .38 Special revolver, firing normal pressure subsonic loads through a good 9mm suppressor, will be about as loud as a .45 with a good suppressor. Both the .38 and .45 are leaking more gas than the 9mm auto, but there's no reason to assert that a cylinder gap produces more noise than a much larger bore does. But that's just my gut feeling, which is equally as worthless as 10 people on an internet forum repeating the same old half truths instead of citing a single reference to verify their claim. |
|
April 13, 2014, 02:12 PM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
Quote:
On the revolver, when the bullet enters the forcing cone, a portion of the "hot" gas behind it, is directed out of the gap between it and the face of the cylinder. On a suppressed gun, the gas is redirected into "ports" in the suppressor, each time the bullet passes one, in effect, trapping and taking the "hot" gases out of the equation. By the time you get to the end of the can, those gases are reduced considerably and effectively. Ive shot suppressed guns in the dark, and you dont get a flash out of the muzzle like you do a revolvers cylinder gap. That flash equates to noise. Another thing is your theory of the size of the hole in the end of the can. I know a number of people who use suppressors made for larger calibers with smaller ones, and have suppression very close to what a caliber specific can gives. A round of 5.56 fired through my buddies 300 B.O. can, is not any louder that I can detect, than a 5.56 fired through my 5.56 caliber specific can. The purpose of the chambers in the suppressor is to redirect, slow and cool the gases, which in turn, lowers the sound signature. That gap on the revolver does none of that. Since NO ONE seems to have any experience with suppressing revolvers, in either direction, leads me to believe it isnt a feasible undertaking, and the reason you have nothing to back up your assertions. If you were right, there would be a ton of videos showing it on YouTube, which we all know, is the most current and verifiable "put up or shut up" documentation of anything. So......put your evidence up on YT, or shut up! ETA: I still say a .22 and a pop bottle will readily prove this out. |
|
April 13, 2014, 02:33 PM | #30 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 30, 2013
Posts: 1,037
|
Quote:
This is a .30 cal pistol with gas seal (no semi auto action to leak gasses, or create extra noise) They use a 9mm (.355cal) and .45 cal suppressor on a .30 caliber pistol. Guess which one ends up measuring quieter, both Dry and Wet. The .45! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GStcHyGQwcQ Quote:
|
||
April 13, 2014, 02:57 PM | #31 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
We can get all in the weeds about fluid flow and all that stuff, but the construction of the forcing cone and the narrow cylinder gap encourages gas flow down the bore, while the construction of the baffles disrupts it. Again, you guys are asserting that tiny gap designed to discourage the disruption of gas flow is going to act in complete opposition to the multiple and widely spaced baffles designed to do the opposite. And the diameter of the barrel bore increases the sound regardless of the diameter of the suppressor bore because it is more total flow getting through to the outside. If the suppressor's action was as definitive as you make it sound, the .45 wouldn't be any louder suppressed than the 9mm, but it is - even though unsuppressed it is not. Any way you cut it, this is a leaky system, and you're just presuming that the cylinder gap has to be the loudest leak. Why? Because it looks hotter? It's about a 1000 PSI opening, or 6% of the peak gas pressure going through the bore on a .38. |
||
April 13, 2014, 03:04 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
Quote:
We dont believe you, it seems 99.99% of the suppressor makers dont believe you, so it seems the onus is on you to show us youre right, and we're wrong. |
|
April 13, 2014, 03:13 PM | #33 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Because you made the claim first that it is unfeasible, even though it was done by the CIA in the past?
How is it my fault that the people making the claim currently out number the one pointing out that they have no proof of their claim? All I did was say "Really? How do you know?" You don't know, and I've already pointed out multiple reasons that suppressing a revolver, however possible, is completely unlikely for anyone to bother with, regardless of how well it does or doesn't work. Which suppressor manufacturer of those 99.9% you mention have tried it? What were their results, and how can the rest of us read about it? And no, I'm not going to commit a felony and brag about it online with a home made suppressor. |
April 13, 2014, 03:16 PM | #34 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
The gas escaping from the cylinder gap is extremely hot and expanding at full velocity. But by the time the gas escapes the end of the suppressor it has gone through many different baffles where the gas has expanded, cooled, and slowed down. Quote:
Quote:
You KEEP saying over and over that the government did it: But with every single silenced revolver I've ever heard of, there was an attempt to cover or seal the cylinder gap. The Nagant revolver pushes the specially-designed cartridge forward to seal the brass rim against the gap. People who reload their own 7.62x38R ammo for suppressor use need to correctly size and form the case, otherwise it won't properly seal against the forcing cone and it will be too loud. And other kinds of silenced revolvers had covers over the gap. I've even heard of special bags that you put the revolver in before you fired it. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
||||||||
April 13, 2014, 03:31 PM | #35 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Theohazard,
Who are these people you're talking about who have suppressed revolvers, and where can we all read their experience? And where did I say I have no experience with suppressors? Or is that just "common knowledge"? The problem here is that you are taking the lack of something as proof of it being a terrible idea. From the point of view of sound suppression, a cylinder gap isn't as efficient, so it is not going to be anyone's first choice. But a .45 is also much less efficient than a 9mm, yet the military bought a bunch of them. I completely agree that a cylinder gap is going to be noisier. Since you have so much experience, how much noisier? 15 dB? 25? Why is an unsuppressed .38 quieter than an unsuppressed 9mm if it has a cylinder gap? You've got the knowledge, I'm the dumb one: Fill me in. |
April 13, 2014, 03:34 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|
April 13, 2014, 03:40 PM | #37 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your words, not mine. |
||
April 13, 2014, 03:54 PM | #38 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 1, 2001
Posts: 10,223
|
Hey, all Im asking is for you to show us youre right. Again, it seems simple enough to me.
I still dont believe your theory is correct, and from the lack of any out of the box, standard grade revolvers that are for sale set up for a suppressor, it sure isnt looking good for what you'd have us believe. If it were a realistic endeavor, you'd think a lot of people would want one (Id like one), and the makers would be happy to supply them, both guns and suppressors. Who do you know thats currently doing that right now? Ill help you out here, none. |
April 13, 2014, 03:57 PM | #39 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You're right that it's a problem in the silencer world; everyone "knows" that a silenced revolver doesn't work, and nobody makes factory-threaded revolvers, so no one is going to go to all the trouble to silence a revolver when it's going to suck anyway. But there is something to that, based on my experience. An understanding of the gas flow in a semi-auto with a suppressor will help you understand why an unmodified silenced revolver is going to be louder than a semi-auto. And a basic understanding of the history of modifying revolvers for suppressor use begs the question, "Why go through all that trouble if a silenced .38 is just as loud as a silenced .45 ACP?" A silenced revolver is more attractive for covert government work in a few ways: It doesn't leave brass behind and -- before the invention of the Neilsen device -- it was a lot more reliable than a normal suppressed locked-breech semi-auto. But there's probably a good reason why all those silenced revolvers were modified to seal the cylinder gap. One day I'll actually thread a .38 and see exactly how loud it is suppressed. Until then I'll simply have to rely the testimony of others, my knowledge of the history of silenced revolvers, my knowledge of how silencers work, and my personal experience with silencers.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
|||
April 13, 2014, 04:00 PM | #40 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Hey, all I'm asking is for you to show me you're right. If it has been tried and didn't work like you say, tell me about it.
You guys are the ones claiming that the picture that started this thread was movie nonsense. Okay - what's your reference? My references are Robhof's post about the CIA revolvers and the math I provided on cylinder gap efficiency. |
April 13, 2014, 04:07 PM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
So if you re-read that quote, you can see I acknowledged that it would make some difference in the overall sound, but I guessed that the extra back-pressure through the cylinder gap might actually make it seem louder to the shooter. And notice that I in no way presented this as fact, it's simply an educated guess.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
||
April 13, 2014, 04:10 PM | #42 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
||
April 13, 2014, 04:12 PM | #43 |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Theo,
That was a reasonable post. But there is a big difference between "it will suck" and "it won't work". Clearly, there is a pecking order in the suppression world, starting with .22s and ending with .454 revolvers. I just want to know where the .38 revolvers of the CIA and television fall out. I've fired or been around lots of suppressors, and all of the 9mm and larger centerfires were so much louder than the .22s that saying a .38 would be pointless makes me wonder how much point there is to any of the hot cartridges. Muffling a .38 revolver the same crummy amount as a .45 doesn't seem like an impossibility considering how the cylinder gap doesn't make a regular .38 any louder than any of these guns. Making it sound like I'm uneducated when I know exactly as little as all of you about suppressing revolvers is just bad manners, though. |
April 13, 2014, 04:15 PM | #44 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
||
April 13, 2014, 04:16 PM | #45 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
Hotter gas? Yes. Less gas? Yes. Total amount due to cylinder gap - I calculated it and provided you with it. If you're going to put me down, you had better start coughing up some facts and figures that demonstrate the stuff you think you understand that I do not. Otherwise, it is just posturing. |
|
April 13, 2014, 04:20 PM | #46 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
||
April 13, 2014, 04:24 PM | #47 | |
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
I said that this is commonly stated, but no one ever offers any data to support the assertion. And you haven't. You've speculated about things that are circumstantial, all while saying that I have to disprove your unsubstantiated claim. This is the equivalent of you claiming your pants are haunted, then getting peeved when someone says "Can you prove that?" You guys made the assertion, I asked how you knew. Not only did I get no data, I was insulted for asking. But I guess no one here is submitting their ideas to a science journal, so why not just yell down anyone that disagrees? |
|
April 13, 2014, 04:35 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
You said that our claim of an un-modified silenced revolver being much louder than a silenced semi-auto was unfounded. You also said that an un-modified silenced .38 was probably as loud as a silenced .45 ACP semi-auto.
I've offered no direct evidence; you're right. But I think my arguments are sound, and I've made all the arguments I can think of to support my assertion. Until I can actually try it myself, that's all I can offer. I disagree with your analogy of the haunted pants. If you go back and re-read my posts, I've made some very good arguments. If that's not enough for you, then that's fine. But until you can come up with some better arguments of your own, we're probably not going to take you seriously. That's all for now. I've got to go back to the real world. If I've offended or insulted you, I apologize. I think my arguments are sound and I'm satisfied with the evidence I have that silenced revolvers suck. But I can't actually quantify how much they suck until I try it myself.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
April 13, 2014, 04:58 PM | #49 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: October 27, 2013
Posts: 1,139
|
Quote:
Quote:
That is what I asked for you to prove, and I apparently made the mistake of offering some counter examples. But I should have simply asked you to defend your statement that a silencer on a revolver would do "a little bit... not much". |
||
April 14, 2014, 06:13 PM | #50 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
Pretty easy to try and you don't need to get ATF OK or pay a tax.
Just get a good size box and line it with sound absorbing material. Poke a hole just big enough for the revolver barrel. Stick the barrel in the box and fire (with a safe backstop, of course). With the muzzle noise muffled, see how much noise comes out at the b-c gap. Do the same for a semi-auto. If you have a Dan Wesson, you can try adjusting the b-c gap. Jim |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|