|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
February 24, 2015, 02:34 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 13, 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 12,453
|
"...see them in movies, and we want one..." There's a lot of stuff like that. Smith 29's, my M1 Rifle and Carbine, the Jeep I had.
"...but your afternoon will not go as planned..." And it'll cost you in 5 figures. "...$200 for a meal..." Wouldn't be eating for 6 weeks after.
__________________
Spelling and grammar count! |
May 5, 2015, 06:42 PM | #52 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2012
Posts: 3
|
one more reason
While cans are cool (but not nearly as cool as MGs) they also allow one to shoot in far more places than an unsuppressed gun, without drawing attention.
|
May 21, 2015, 10:24 PM | #53 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 27, 2002
Location: ut.
Posts: 341
|
Late to this thread, I know.... I bought my first suppressor as a curiosity. It was part of the HK Mark 23 and Knights OHG combo. I wasn't sure what to expect the first time I fired suppressed. Needless to say, it didn't sound like films from the seventies and eighties portrayed. I didn't really expect it to.
As to hearing safe, it depends on where you discharge the weapon. In the open range with nothing to bounce the sound back, mine is definitely hearing safe. It makes no more noise than a pneumatic framing nailer. Under a steel roof is still uncomfortable. Within a structure, I wouldn't want to fire it without hearing pro. More interesting to me was that the suppressor changed the sound so that unless you knew it was a gun, you'd likely not associate the sound with one. Of course this is 45acp and the projectiles are subsonic. I bought my second suppressor for different reasons. My third I bought because it was only one of less than thirty ever made by KAC. |
May 21, 2015, 11:54 PM | #54 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
Read post #6 and post # 12 again. Quote:
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." Last edited by Theohazard; May 22, 2015 at 12:05 AM. Reason: typos |
||
May 21, 2015, 11:56 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 1,277
|
I just purchased a suppressor, only because I wanted to make a cool gun project.
I am going to make a snow camo select-fire AR with a white suppressor. In central Texas, we don't get much snow, but I saw it in a movie, and said, 'I don't have one of those.' It is going to be the coolest gun ever. EVER. *I would take Theos' advice. He's very scientifically knowledgable on the issue of suppressors.
__________________
Sent from Motorola DynaTac 8000x |
May 22, 2015, 01:37 AM | #56 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 27, 2002
Location: ut.
Posts: 341
|
Really Theohazard? I don't remember seeing you out there in the desert with me. What did your meter read when I was firing? Was I firing wet or dry? How many grains of which powder did I charge my cartridges?
The fact is you don't know what I experienced. I said in the open range mine was definitely hearing safe. Slamming my truck door was louder. Unless you expect the average person to never be exposed to that level of noise, I don't think you need to play the pedant. The internet has been around long enough that I think even the most remedial user knows the info there in should be taken with a grain of salt. You may have had good intentions, your delivery could some work. |
May 22, 2015, 03:13 AM | #57 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
There's no need to be upset. The fact is that there is no silencer on the market that is "hearing safe" using normal ammo. Period. Even a silenced .22 rifle fired wet outdoors using subsonic .22 LR ammo will still be above the medically safe limit for noise-induced hearing loss over time. You're using a .45 ACP KAC silencer, which fired wet from the best host possible on a good day outdoors with favorable testing equipment will meter 125 dB at best. That's FAR above the level that will permanently damage your hearing. Quote:
Quote:
I hear this so often; people are convinced that their silencers are quieter than they actually are. And this is for two main reasons: First, they're mentally comparing the sound to what it sounds like unsuppressed, and the difference is huge. And second, the sound of a gun firing is much quicker and at a different pitch than many other sounds, so it seems quieter to the ear. But your Mk23 with your Knights suppressor made a sound that's similar in dB range to a jackhammer, even if your subjective experience tries to tell you otherwise. There's a reason why people use decibel meters to objectively measure sounds instead of their ears. Quote:
There is plenty more verifiable information on the internet provided by various scientific organizations that study hearing loss. And there are plenty of links to various tests of the decibel levels of suppressed firearms. Combine that information, and it's pretty easy to determine that there's no physical way possible that your silencer is "hearing safe", not unless you loaded your rounds FAR below anything that resembles a standard pistol load.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
||||
May 22, 2015, 11:23 AM | #58 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,461
|
Quote:
With firearms the risk one routinely faces is a painful level of noise with immediate and permanent damage that can leave a person grossly impaired over time. That's a difference of degree and kind.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
May 22, 2015, 11:50 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Zukiphile, I agree. The level of hearing loss one can expect from a suppressed .22 is extremely low and would require a lot of shooting to be noticable. Much of what we do in our normal lives probably causes more danger to our hearing. However, I'm simply providing context to the claims of silencers being "hearing safe".
The quietest .22 silencers using a rifle with subsonic .22 LR ammo meter in the 115 dB range. That's in the same dB range as a jackhammer or a chainsaw, and that's in a range that can easily damage your hearing pretty quickly. However, the saving grace is that the sound of the shot is very quick, so it would take a lot of shots to add up to noticable hearing loss. And when you get up to the sound level of a suppressed centerfire pistol or rifle, the danger is much higher and the duration required to cause permanent hearing loss is much shorter.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." Last edited by Theohazard; May 22, 2015 at 12:31 PM. |
May 22, 2015, 01:49 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 12, 2011
Location: Top of the Baltic stack
Posts: 6,079
|
I just wanted to post pictures of my daughter's toys...
... but unfortunately this rifle with a fat end bit got in the way...
Yeah.... they're just cool!!
__________________
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic. Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
|
May 22, 2015, 02:11 PM | #61 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 4, 2013
Location: Western slope of Colorado
Posts: 3,679
|
Theo has forgotten more about Suppressors and their hosts then most of us know. Id ignore him at your peril on this subject.
I run a surppressed rifle as a primary weapon at work. I suppress my pistols cause its COOL!! |
May 22, 2015, 04:45 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Thanks Sharkbite! Though I'm often reminded of how much I don't know every time I visit some of the silencer-specific forums. Some of those guys have been doing this a lot longer than I have and have tons more experience, and a few of them even work for some of the major manufacturers.
This specific subject of silencers being "hearing safe" is one that has interested me ever since I had a learning experience a few years ago. At the time I still bought into the misleading and medically incorrect assertion made throughout the industry that any silencer under 140 dB is hearing safe (this is based on a misinterpretation of OSHA rules for noise exposure). I had a customer who was interested in buying a pistol can, and I mentioned that the one he was looking at was hearing safe. He told me that none of the cans we sold were actually "hearing safe". It turned out that he was a medical doctor who had experience with noise-related hearing loss. After that, it didn't take too much research for me to determine that he was right. Now, the one area where I'd like to learn more is in the specifics regarding the exposure required to cause measurable hearing loss; gunshots are staccato and brief, so they're different than the constant noise that many of the exposure guidelines are based on. At some point I want to contact a few audiologists and ask them, because I haven't been able to find that specfic information online.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." |
August 20, 2015, 11:53 AM | #63 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: June 19, 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
We have a shop demo bolt action .22 that we fire suppressed with subsonic ammo and you simply would be shocked as to how quiet it is. Clapping your hands, listing to a phone call on your mobile phone or operating your vacuum cleaner is much louder. A pellet rifle is louder than this setup. I submit that just walking out doors in a city or driving your car with the windows down would cause more damage.
__________________
FFL w/ SOT Check out our extensive online firearm and shooting sports store here: https://www.redcircletactical.com/ |
|
September 5, 2015, 02:54 AM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 3,829
|
Quote:
I'm always amazed at people who think that their ears are somehow a more precise and objective measuring tool than an actual decibel meter. But our ears are no match for actual scientific measurements of sounds. And considering 110 - 120 dB is in the range that can easily damage your hearing fairly quickly from repeat exposure, it's pretty clear that even a silenced .22 isn't truly "hearing safe". Sure, it's probably not doing noticable damage during most shooting sessions, but it still produces dB levels that are above the threshold for permanent hearing loss from prolonged exposure.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume." Last edited by Theohazard; September 5, 2015 at 02:59 AM. |
|
|
|