barrel with offset bore ???

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

I apparently made the mistake of offering some counter examples.

So far the only examples of silenced revolvers any of us have offered have been modified in some way to cover the cylinder gap; you've offered no examples of silenced conventional revolvers and all I have is second-hand anecdotal evidence of them combined with my personal experience with silencers in general. So neither of us have any concrete examples.

Originally Posted by James K

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.

While that's a pretty good idea and it would be a good thing to try, it completely leaves out a potentially important variable: back-pressure.

The back-pressure coming out of the chamber on a locked-breech semi-auto usually doesn't add much to the noise because the bullet has been out of the barrel for a relatively long time when the breech unlocks, but sometimes if the recoil spring is too light it can be noticeably louder. And straight-blowback semi-autos are often louder because there's more gas coming out of the chamber due the silencer's back-pressure.

The gas coming out of the cylinder gap due to back-pressure on a normal silenced revolver won't be as hot or as high-pressure as the gas that initially comes out of the gap, but I'm pretty sure it will be noticeably louder than the back-pressure gas coming out of the chamber on a semi-auto. But until I actually thread a revolver and shoot it with my Octane 9, I'll never know exactly how much difference the back-pressure makes in the overall sound.

[RX-79G]

How about sticking the muzzle in water, then? That's got to be a fair bit of back pressure.

And my "counter examples" were functional examples; the amount of pressure that comes out of gap and the amount that comes out of different bore sizes, not examples of the exact kind of silenced revolver pictured in this thread.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

And my "counter examples" were functional examples; the amount of pressure that comes out of gap and the amount that comes out of different bore sizes, not examples of the exact kind of silenced revolver pictured in this thread.

Fair enough, but none of your examples took into account the extra gas coming out of the gap due to the back-pressure of a silencer. And they also didn't address the fact that the gas coming out of the bore of a silencer is slowed, cooled, and has its pressure lowered. So the gas coming out of the bore of a silencer is in a very different state than the gas coming out of the cylinder gap, even if it has a higher volume.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

How about sticking the muzzle in water, then? That's got to be a fair bit of back pressure.

That's another good idea, but I honestly have no idea how the back-pressure produced by water would compare to a silencer's back-pressure.

Basically what you've done here is completely re-kindle my plans to silence revolver. So now I need a host. Anyone know of a cheap .38 or .357 with a 3" - 4" barrel that's easily removable and has a round profile that can easily be threaded?

[Theohazard]

Also, I highly doubt sticking the muzzle in water would come anywhere near the suppression offered by a good silencer. So it would be pretty hard to tell how much difference the cylinder gap made because the overall volume probably wouldn't be suppressed much.

I've shot my Glock 19/Octane 9 combo in a closed concrete-walled garage before (I had a very good backstop and I was out in the country where it was legal) and it was still quieter than a .22 rifle fired outdoors. I can't imagine that sticking the barrel in water would offer anywhere near that amount of suppression.

[RX-79G]

Take the front sight off a 6" Blackhawk and mount a turned extension over the round barrel. You can remove it when you're done.

[Theohazard]

I have zero experience mounting a suppressor that way. It's going to have to be very tight and straight or I'd worry about baffle strikes. I'm no gunsmith, but it's probably much easier to make it straight by just threading the barrel. Even though I'd have to buy a new barrel, it's still cheaper than paying Silencerco to re-build my Octane after a baffle strike.

[RX-79G]

Yeah, I guess there is no possible way to verify that it is on straight without firing it.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

Yeah, I guess there is no possible way to verify that it is on straight without firing it.

I'm not sure why you feel the need for sarcasm, I thought we had managed to turn this back into a civil discussion.

It's pretty easy to tell if it's on straight, but my point is that an extension that's tight enough to not wobble and cause baffle strikes would be a lot more work to make than just threading the barrel.

[Magnum Wheel Man]

sounds like the easiest would be to pick up or borrow if you can find one local, a Dan Wesson in 357 Magnum, & machine a small adapter that would act as the barrel nut on one end, but would have the 1/2" thread ( or what ever ) needed to thread a silencer on it...

some of you guys are lucky... in Minnesota, they are not legal, so we don't get to play with things like that, up here... ( I'd love to have a couple for informal range use... but I don't ever see them changing that law ??? )

[RX-79G]

Pardon me, Theo. It's just that every time I've suggested anything on this thread, your immediate or eventual reaction is that I must be wrong.

The adapter I was suggesting is just like the comps made for Ruger MKII barrels, which also need to be very concentric to not have a strike. Lathe turned by a gunsmith, there is no reason that it wouldn't be tight and concentric, as well as faster and cheaper to execute.

And really, I have a hard time seeing how a silencer, which is a huge expansion chamber, could possibly create more back pressure than in a revolver with an extra long barrel. In other words, an 8 inch revolver likely produces more back pressure than a 3 inch revolver with a suppressor because the pressure remains closer to peak for the first 8 inches of bullet travel, while it drops considerably in the suppressor. Suppressors create some back pressure, but not more than a sealed bore - just more than an open muzzle.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by RX-79G

Pardon me, Theo. It's just that every time I've suggested anything on this thread, your immediate or eventual reaction is that I must be wrong.

To be fair, several of the assertions you've made in this thread have been wrong. I apologize if you take offense at that, but you started an argument on a subject (silencers) about which you apparently know very little.

However, post #56 was hardly a blanket declaration that you were wrong. I simply pointed out that threading the barrel was probably a cheaper and easier way to mount a silencer. I don't think examining and critiquing ideas is the same as just declaring them wrong. But again, I apologize if that offended you.

Originally Posted by RX-79G

And really, I have a hard time seeing how a silencer, which is a huge expansion chamber, could possibly create more back pressure than in a revolver with an extra long barrel. In other words, an 8 inch revolver likely produces more back pressure than a 3 inch revolver with a suppressor because the pressure remains closer to peak for the first 8 inches of bullet travel, while it drops considerably in the suppressor. Suppressors create some back pressure, but not more than a sealed bore - just more than an open muzzle.

That's a very good point: A revolver with a longer barrel almost certainly allows more gas to escape the cylinder gap than the same length of suppressor would. But I have no idea how much; if I tried James K's idea using a longer-barreled revolver I might come closer to simulating the extra back-pressure of a silencer, but it might still be way off in one direction or another. Also, a longer barrel tends to produce less muzzle blast, so it tends to be quieter at the muzzle than a shorter barrel. So I'd worry that using a longer barrel to simulate the extra back-pressure would introduce too many extra variables.

[Sharkbite]

Uhhh... Hate to spoil the party, but to do the above is to manufacture an un-registered silencer and is a NO-NO

Strickly speaking to do the above experiment requires a Form 1 and a $200 tax paid to manufacture the suppressor. Stupid but true

[Theohazard]

The ATF doesn't consider it a silencer if it's a separate structure that's not attached to the gun. I don't know the exact details of how they make that distinction, but I'm almost certain that what James K described in post #50 doesn't require any registration.

[Sharkbite]

I thought any device that reduced the report of the shot qualified for the "tax"

You know more about this then i do though. So, if i make a box to shoot thru at the gunclub thats ok?

[RX-79G]

Sharkbite, gunsmiths have testing barrels that allow them to fire the gun indoors. No tax stamp for that, either.

I'm sure any highly portable, handheld device would not be tolerated, but that's not what we're talking about.

[Sharkbite]

A bullet trap is used to stop the bullet. It doesnt make the gun any quieter. Ive used a bunch of them (snail-traps). Still gotta wear ears

We are talking about a device specifically designed to reduce the sound of the report... Not stop the bullet. Two different things

[RX-79G]

I've witnessed ones that enclose the gun, muffling it. That's all a silencer or a box does - muffle the shot a bit.

Look, the way you're talking about this, an indoor gun range needs a tax stamp because it muffles gun shots. It doesn't, nor does any device that doesn't attach to the gun, like a big box. Or a swimming pool. Or a pillow.


As a general observation, people on these forums seem to love creating these legal gotchas all the time. The current laws are a pain, but they really aren't as dangerous to gun owners as the conspiracy theorists make them out.

[Sharkbite]

Gun Control Act Definitions
Silencer
18 U.S.C., § 921(A)(24)

The term “Firearm Silencer” or “Firearm Muffler” means any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.


The above does not say ANYTHING about the device being attached

Your comment about an indoor range being a suppressor is ludicrous

Im not even going to address your insulting comment about "conspiracy theorists"

Making a box to shoot thru with the express intent of "quieting the shot" falls into this category. Period.

[RX-79G]

"Portable firearm". What do you think that means?

If you showed an ATF agent a big box designed to sit on the floor and both muffle and trap a bullet, then ask him if it was a silencer, he would also use the word "ludicrous".

Sometimes these regulations aren't written in a way that encompasses every possibility, but the intention of the law is pretty clear. And no one is going to seek arrest or prosecution on a reductio ad absurdum argument that a piece of furniture is a "silencer designed for a portable firearm".

[Sharkbite]

Jeezzzz

It means the FIREARM IS PORTABLE.... Just as its written

"ANY" means, ANY
"PORTABLE" means

portable[ pawr-tuh-buhl, pohr- ]
adjective
1. capable of being transported or conveyed: a portable stage.
2. easily carried or conveyed by hand: a portable typewriter.
3. (of data sets, software, etc.) capable of being used on different computer systems.

Hardly bears discussing....

[RX-79G]

Then explain how any structure designed to muffle firearms isn't a silencer.

[Sharkbite]

WOW, is all i can say to that

[orionengnr]

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,

Yeah, because we all know that everything the government spends our money on is an unqualified success...right?
As far as the .22LR and the pop bottle...to my understanding, that would be quite illegal.
I don't think it is TFL policy to encourage or condone illegal behavior. So please tread lightly.

[AK103K]

All the rules, regs, and attempts to prove they can be silenced aside, the one glaring thing I still see that stands out is, a lack of any suppressed "mass produced" revolvers, other than the Nagants.

The fact we dont see ANY (beyond the movies), to me is quite telling, and a pretty good indicator of whether or not they work.

If it was in fact feasible, Im sure we would be seeing them all over the place, and with the way the markets are with all the "tactical and cool" stuff, they should sell like hot cakes. I know Id buy me a couple.

For pretty much any other type of gun out there, we have a plethora of examples of working combos of weapon and suppressor. The one thats is obviouly lacking in that respect, is the revolver.

[RX-79G]

WOW, is all i can say to that

Explain to me why I'm a fool for thinking a big, heavy box isn't a silencer, and you're well informed for thinking an even bigger box is not?

When does a not-very-portable box go from being a silencer to not, in your scholarly opinion? 2'x2', 4'x4', 10'x10'?