barrel with offset bore ???

[AK103K]

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

Everyone always says this. Prove it.

You're right, I haven't tried it. But I worked at a major silencer dealer for two years, I tested countless silencers on various hosts, and I've talked with many silencer manufacturers, so I know a little bit about what I'm talking about.

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.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

If you think the cylinder gap is big, you should see the monster hole that goes all the way through the silencer and out the far end. Clearly, this isn't close to a sealed system.
[...]
Silencers are don't trap the gas, they just muffle a percentage of it. If cylinder gaps leaked so badly, revolvers would be terribly inefficient.

You clearly don't understand how a silencer works.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

We know that revolvers have been suppressed in the past, so it couldn't have been that much worse than a high pressure .38 Super or 9mm, or a large bore .45.

Revolvers that were suppressed in the past had some form of gas-seal system for the cylinder gap.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

And cylinder gaps account for less than 50 fps of lost energy, and that energy is what makes the noise.

Cylinder gaps offer a unobstructed channel for the gas to escape. There's nothing like it on a semi-auto, period. And considering the suppressor traps the gas and slows its exit -- sending some of it back down the bore -- this open gap allows for a large amount of hot gasses to escape immediately, something that simply doesn't happen on a semi-auto.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

I just think it is ridiculous to keep repeating something that is entirely unproven, especially when it used to be done.

I think it's ridiculous to have strong opinions on a subject you obviously know nothing about. Do you own any silencers? How many different silencers have you fired on how many different hosts? If you had a basic understanding of them, you'd realize why revolvers make such bad suppressor hosts.

[RX-79G]

Cylinder gaps offer a unobstructed channel for the gas to escape.

Yeah, just like the big hole at the end of the suppressor.

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.

[AK103K]

Yeah, just like the big hole at the end of the suppressor.

It appears this is where your lack of understanding of how a suppressor works comes in.

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.

[JD0x0]

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.

You are correct and here's 'proof' on that.

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

Unsuppressed avg: 154.45db
9mm dry avg: 125.88
9mm wet avg: 124.71
.45 dry avg: 125.04
.45 wet avg: 123.72

[RX-79G]

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.

Actually the CIA ordered a group of Dan Wessons from the Monson plant that were modified to take supressors, they were 357's and were to be used with jacketed bullets only, the cylinder gap was set at .0015" and the cylinders were trued to .0002". There was one on display at a spec ops weapons display that I was lucky enough to attend when active duty back in the 70's.

So it is feasible, therefore I do have back up on my assertions?

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.

[AK103K]

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.

Since you dont agree, prove to us it isnt. Seems simple enough.

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.

[RX-79G]

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

Yeah, just like the big hole at the end of the suppressor.

No, it's not the same at all. You clearly don't understand how a silencer works.

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.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

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.

Except in this case you don't have any personal experience with silencers at all.

Originally Posted by RX-70G

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.

"Useless" is a relative term; it's probably going to lower the sound some. But it's definitely loud enough that it makes a lot less sense than suppressing a semi-auto.

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.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

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".

Actually, it is your assertion to prove. You're going against common and excepted firearm knowledge. You need to offer something more than what you already have, which is basically nothing; all you've shown so far is a lack of understanding of how a suppressor works and a misguided notion that our government has used conventional revolvers with silencers in the past.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

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.

You're right, we can't. But we do understand how a silencer works, and we know that the gas escaping from the end of a silencer has had a lot more time to expand, cool, and slow down than the gas coming out of the cylinder gap. And, due to a silencer's back-pressure, there will be even more hot gas coming out of that gap.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

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.

This is ridiculous. You have no personal experience with suppressors, yet you're willing to make this guess? Have you ever fired a .45 with a good suppressor? If a standard silencer revolver could be that quiet then there would be absolutely no reason to go through all the effort to design custom revolvers to be suppressed. Have you ever fired a blow-back operated .380 with a recoil spring that was too light? It's pretty darn loud, and theres still a lot less gass escaping than there is in a revolver.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

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.

So you're saying that all the attempts in the last century to modify revolvers for silencer use were all for naught? That everyone in the silencer world is wrong? That every guy who has improperly sized his Nagant ammo and had it improperly seal is just lying about how loud it is? Every guy who has threaded the barrel on a normal revolver, suppressed it, and then said that it was too loud to be worth it is just lying? You're making an extraordinary claim here, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you've offered zero evidence other than your misunderstanding of how silencers work and your misunderstanding of the history of silenced revolvers.

[RX-79G]

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

So it is feasible, therefore I do have back up on my assertions?

Of course it's feasible. Nobody is arguing that. But whether it's a suppressed Nagant, or a specially-designed silenced revolver like the ones by Dan Wesson or Knights Armament, they all have some manner of converting or sealing the cylinder gap. You're saying that a normal revolver will suppress just fine, which is something you haven't been able to back up at all.

[RX-79G]

As for suppressing a revolver, it might make a little bit of a difference in the overall sound, but probably not much; too much gas escapes from the cylinder/barrel gap. In addition, traditional silencer designs produce back-pressure, so I would think it might actually sound louder to the shooter because of the back-pressure pushing more gas back through the cylinder/barrel gap.

This is you saying it is going to be louder than unsuppressed.

leads me to believe it isnt a feasible undertaking

And that's A103K saying it is not feasible.

Your words, not mine.

[AK103K]

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

Who are these people you're talking about who have suppressed revolvers, and where can we all read their experience?

I've talked to people who've played around with Nagants, and I've read a few forums where people have threaded and suppressed normal revolvers (usually .22s) and reported that they're pretty loud and not worth it. So nothing solid that you'll accept as evidence, but it's a lot more than you've offered so far.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

And where did I say I have no experience with suppressors? Or is that just "common knowledge"?

You didn't. Consider it an educated guess based on your lack of understanding of how a silencer works.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

I completely agree that a cylinder gap is going to be noisier. Since you have so much experience, how much noisier? 15 dB? 25?

That's something I can't say considering I've never personally tried it. Back when I worked at an 07/02 FFL I actually wanted to try it; I wanted to find an old .38 and put my Octane on it. Our gunsmith was extremely experienced with suppressors and even had some experience with a specially modified and silenced S&W 629. But he didn't want to thread the barrel for me; he said it was a waste of his time and it would suck anyway. Basically he though I was being ridiculous for even trying.

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.

[RX-79G]

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

This is you saying it is going to be louder than unsuppressed.

No. That's not what I said at all. This also shows your lack of silencer experience. Notice I said that it might sound louder to the shooter. Silencers are measured in several different ways. For example, both the AAC M4-2000 and its little brother, the Mini-4, are almost exactly the same volume when tested at the shooter's ear. But the Mini-4 is much louder when measured at the muzzle.

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

My references are Robhof's post about the CIA revolvers

A revolver that was modified to deal with the cylinder gap! But I'm talking about unmodified silenced revolvers!

Originally Posted by RX-79G

and the math I provided on cylinder gap efficiency.

...Combined with a complete lack of understanding on the difference between the gasses escaping the cylinder gap and the gasses escaping the end of the silencers after it has passed through the baffles.

[RX-79G]

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

That was a reasonable post. But there is a big difference between "it will suck" and "it won't work".

You're right. I've never heard anyone in the suppressor world say it won't make any difference at all, but the consensus is that it sucks enough that it's not worth it. So, for all intents and purposes, it doesn't really work.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

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.

Maybe it is. If you feel like I've personally insulted you than I apologize. But you've basically told us all that we're wrong without any good evidence to actually show why we're wrong.

[RX-79G]

...Combined with a complete lack of understanding on the difference between the gasses escaping the cylinder gap and the gasses escaping the end of the silencers after it has passed through the baffles.

What, exactly, is it I don't understand?

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.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

What, exactly, is it I don't understand?

Hotter gas? Yes. Less gas? Yes. Total amount due to cylinder gap - I calculated it and provided you with it.

The gas coming out of the end of the suppressor is much cooler, slower, and under less pressure. That's how a silencer works. As far as the difference in overall volume, I just don't know. What I do know is that a silencer produces considerable back-pressure, so there will definitely be more gas escaping the gap with a silencer than without. How much? I really don't know.

[RX-79G]

But you've basically told us all that we're wrong without any good evidence to actually show why we're wrong.

Actually, I have not.

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?

[Theohazard]

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.

[RX-79G]

You said that our claim of an un-modified silenced revolver being much louder than a silenced semi-auto was unfounded

No, I disagreed when you said:

As for suppressing a revolver, it might make a little bit of a difference in the overall sound, but probably not much

No mention of autos, just a blanket statement that the net effect would be meaningless.

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".

[James K]

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