A suppressor without baffles?

Evil Monkey · November 7, 2011, 09:09 PM

Can such a device decrease the decibel level of muzzle report appreciably?

I have no experience with suppressors so excuse my ignorance. I know that baffles slow down and circulate the burning powder to reduce pressure and seep it out slower.

But if you have only a tube and no baffles, and is large enough, maybe even reflexive by being able to wrap around the barrel, shouldn't this design also reduce sound? The major questions are how efficient would such a design be, and how large would it be.

Crosshair · November 7, 2011, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Can such a device decrease the decibel level of muzzle report appreciably?

In short: No

In long: Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Such a setup would at best net you a few db, you would need sound equipment to notice the difference though. If you're curious and want to try out the theory, do it with a lawnmower or other small engine since there's no NFA tax for that. You will quickly find out why there is always some sort of packing or baffles in the can or muffler.

Willie Lowman · November 7, 2011, 10:10 PM

In short, Yes.

In this pic Tom has what I think is called a "metro-barrel" on his shotgun. It reduced the report of the gun to that of a truck door being slammed.

It wasn't a tube wrapping around the barrel, it was just a tube that made the barrel much longer.

Bartholomew Roberts · November 8, 2011, 04:14 PM

A silencer works by delaying the exit of combusting gases, allowing them to slow down to subsonic velocities and not create a muzzle crack. So in theory, a long enough barrel would do the same thing. In practical terms, you need a pretty long barrel even for relatively low-velocity stuff like handguns and shotguns. I don't think it would be feasible for a centerfire rifle.

Asgardnz · November 11, 2011, 07:48 PM

Where I come from suppresors are not regulated so I have done some playing. I built a suppressor around the size of the ones fitted to Mac 10's and fitted it to a short 9mm barrel. In test firing I used the empty suppressor and then filled it wirh baffles made of spun aluminium shaped to direct the flow of gases. The empty suppressor cut the crack down to a level that I did not need earmuffs firing 9mm indoors in a factory. The baffles did better but in the end I left out the baffles for simplicity. I think the large volume of the suppressor helped. I find that suppressors mask the direction of the sound as well which is good for hunting. I have a Contender rifle with 44magnum, 30-30 and 22 barrels all threaded for suppressors.

Evil Monkey · November 12, 2011, 05:21 PM

I figure a baffle-less suppressor may work with pistol rounds.

sustaining rifle round muzzle blasts is another feat.

rjrivero · November 12, 2011, 08:38 PM

A single chambered suppressor will work, but it will be A LOT less efficient than a baffled suppressor. Even simple "washer" type suppressors will work better than a single chamber suppressor. If you're going to pay the $200 Tax ANYWAY, why not make a couple baffles and stack them in the tube? They don't have to be FANCY, but anything to cause turbulence and slow the gas expansion will be better than a closed empty can.

RAnb · November 13, 2011, 10:51 AM

A silencer that consists of a tube with two endcaps is a silencer in name only. It will reduce noise just enough to require a tax stamp by an unlicensed owner. In other words it would suck. I tried my 22lr can on my pistol with the baffles removed, it hardly made a difference. With just one bafle installed it made a big difference.

Given the same cartridge, a pistol can be much louder than a rifle, with or without a silencer attached. The longer barrel sucks out lots of heat and noise as the bullet moves down it. In other words, pistols are always louder than rifles.

Baffles are the key here. Mesh sucks too.

I am not impressed with the Metrogun extension on paper. http://www.metrogun.com/

Quote:

How loud is the Metro Gun system? About the same as the sound of a car door closing, 72 Db at 100 feet, when shooting sub sonic ammunition.

The standard way to measure gun noise is to position the microphone one meter to the side of the muzzle (and in some cases the shooter's ear). Metrogun does it 100 feet away. 100 feet can change the noise intensity by a factor of 1000 or 30 decibels. When I wrote to the maker, he did not have any details on why this method was choosen and when I pressed him for details he told me I did not have to buy it.

I have no reason to believe that use of the Metrogun extension is going to eliminate the need for ear plugs, but that is what they imply when they say noise is reduced to 70 decibels. I would like to hear one though.

Ranb

xsiv4s · November 17, 2011, 11:45 PM

Is there a source out there for the math behind suppressors? Things like the cubic inches of suppressor for a given db level reduction on a given caliber. The long shotgun reminds me of a saying I heard years ago that anything can be suppressed if you have a big enough can.

chack · November 18, 2011, 12:33 AM

there were successful early versions of suppressors that used a single chamber with a long cyclonic one piece baffle. It was patented by Hiram P maxim, the son of the designer of the weapon that was used to kill millions of men in WWI.

Scorch · November 18, 2011, 01:31 AM

If I am not mistaken, things like what the OP is asking about used to be called "bloop tubes". They reduce the report if you are standing right next to or behind the muzzle, but out in front there is little or no difference. Kind of a directional suppressor, if you will.

Evil Monkey · November 18, 2011, 06:46 AM

Quote:

If I am not mistaken, things like what the OP is asking about used to be called "bloop tubes". They reduce the report if you are standing right next to or behind the muzzle, but out in front there is little or no difference. Kind of a directional suppressor, if you will.

Isn't that just a baffle-less tube with no end cap? I have a hard time believing it would work with any firearm in a practical size. The tube would have to be quite long I assume.

November 7, 2011, 09:09 PM	#1
Evil Monkey Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Posts: 812	A suppressor without baffles? Can such a device decrease the decibel level of muzzle report appreciably? I have no experience with suppressors so excuse my ignorance. I know that baffles slow down and circulate the burning powder to reduce pressure and seep it out slower. But if you have only a tube and no baffles, and is large enough, maybe even reflexive by being able to wrap around the barrel, shouldn't this design also reduce sound? The major questions are how efficient would such a design be, and how large would it be. __________________ BREAKING NEWS: Local man found in the street yelling "1911" and "45" while drooling, more at 11:00.

November 7, 2011, 10:10 PM	#3
Willie Lowman Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2009 Location: Uh-Hi-O Posts: 3,006	In short, Yes. In this pic Tom has what I think is called a "metro-barrel" on his shotgun. It reduced the report of the gun to that of a truck door being slammed. It wasn't a tube wrapping around the barrel, it was just a tube that made the barrel much longer. __________________ "9mm has a very long history of being a pointy little bullet moving quickly" --Sevens

November 12, 2011, 05:21 PM	#6
Evil Monkey Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Posts: 812	I figure a baffle-less suppressor may work with pistol rounds. sustaining rifle round muzzle blasts is another feat. __________________ BREAKING NEWS: Local man found in the street yelling "1911" and "45" while drooling, more at 11:00.

November 18, 2011, 12:33 AM	#10
chack Junior member Join Date: May 24, 2011 Location: dixie Posts: 477	there were successful early versions of suppressors that used a single chamber with a long cyclonic one piece baffle. It was patented by Hiram P maxim, the son of the designer of the weapon that was used to kill millions of men in WWI. Last edited by chack; November 18, 2011 at 01:49 AM.

November 18, 2011, 01:31 AM	#11
Scorch Senior Member Join Date: February 13, 2006 Location: Washington state Posts: 15,248	If I am not mistaken, things like what the OP is asking about used to be called "bloop tubes". They reduce the report if you are standing right next to or behind the muzzle, but out in front there is little or no difference. Kind of a directional suppressor, if you will. __________________ Never try to educate someone who resists knowledge at all costs. But what do I know? Summit Arms Services

November 8, 2011, 04:14 PM	#4
Bartholomew Roberts member Join Date: June 12, 2000 Location: Texas and Oklahoma area Posts: 8,462	A silencer works by delaying the exit of combusting gases, allowing them to slow down to subsonic velocities and not create a muzzle crack. So in theory, a long enough barrel would do the same thing. In practical terms, you need a pretty long barrel even for relatively low-velocity stuff like handguns and shotguns. I don't think it would be feasible for a centerfire rifle.

November 11, 2011, 07:48 PM	#5
Asgardnz Member Join Date: November 4, 2011 Location: New Zealand Posts: 35	Where I come from suppresors are not regulated so I have done some playing. I built a suppressor around the size of the ones fitted to Mac 10's and fitted it to a short 9mm barrel. In test firing I used the empty suppressor and then filled it wirh baffles made of spun aluminium shaped to direct the flow of gases. The empty suppressor cut the crack down to a level that I did not need earmuffs firing 9mm indoors in a factory. The baffles did better but in the end I left out the baffles for simplicity. I think the large volume of the suppressor helped. I find that suppressors mask the direction of the sound as well which is good for hunting. I have a Contender rifle with 44magnum, 30-30 and 22 barrels all threaded for suppressors.

November 12, 2011, 08:38 PM	#7
rjrivero Senior Member Join Date: November 17, 2008 Location: NW Ohio Posts: 1,399	A single chambered suppressor will work, but it will be A LOT less efficient than a baffled suppressor. Even simple "washer" type suppressors will work better than a single chamber suppressor. If you're going to pay the $200 Tax ANYWAY, why not make a couple baffles and stack them in the tube? They don't have to be FANCY, but anything to cause turbulence and slow the gas expansion will be better than a closed empty can.

November 17, 2011, 11:45 PM	#9
xsiv4s Junior Member Join Date: August 7, 2011 Posts: 10	Is there a source out there for the math behind suppressors? Things like the cubic inches of suppressor for a given db level reduction on a given caliber. The long shotgun reminds me of a saying I heard years ago that anything can be suppressed if you have a big enough can.