How does a gun silencer work?

[Howard]

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
the real question is does a silencer weaken the gun's power?

like counterstrike..

It is travelling slower. The force of *gas puls* from the gun powder is at 3000lbs psi normally (taken from the howstuffworks website article) and when it is silenced it is 60lbs psi. It will be weaker but it makes up for that by being quieter.

Koing

Why would that slow the bullet down any more than when the bullet leaves the gun normally, though? I can't imagine the friction sustained during the split second the bullet is in the silencer would have that big of an effect.

It wouldn't. The bullet is hardly any more weak than without the silencer. Might the question be accuracy instead?

If anything you'd think the bullet would be more accurate since it would be in the barrel longer. Longer barrel = more accurate shot. Although, now that I think about it, the inside of the silencer probably isn't, for lack of a better word, corkscrewed like the inside of the barrel is. So I can see how that would reduce accuracy.

I don't think the bullet is in contact with the inside of the silencer, so no, I would think it wouldn't be rifled (but it's not that big of a deal).

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: stonecold3169

Originally posted by: Monel Funkawitz
Silencers don't reduce the power or feet per second of the bullet as if shot without the silencer, but it does impart some strange characteristics on the bullet in flight sometimes. Your point of impact will change when you put a can on your barrel and you will have to resight your gun. Still has the same impact power with or without the silencer if you shoot the same ammo.

Silencers are really only effective with subsonic ammo though. Subsonic = reduced powder charge = reduced power = reduced noise.

On average, a good silencer will drop the blast about 30 decibels or so, and they sound NOTHING like they do in the movies.

30 decibels less would be about 1/8 the volume of the original then? That would still have a decent pop to it on most firearms, although honestly my sidearm experiance is lacking compared to my rifle experiance. Not as quiet as in the movies, but a good deal lower... big advantage being maybe that being quieter it might be harder to ponpoint exactly where it came from? certainly not going to keep a crowd from noticing.

I could have sworn I had seen silencers for rifles before... on an already quiet weapon, like a 22, I bet this could be useful... although, if you are silencing a rifle, you are likely trying to be a sniper... and having the barrel of the silence bigger then the round would majorly kill accuracy, right? So is it more of a novalty sorta thing?

Silencing the blast is great for your ears. Also, "trying to be a sniper..."

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
For reference, here's a video of regular supersonic ammo and subsonic ammo through an OGC Raptor.

Link

Crazy.

I want one

 

[Ns1]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
For reference, here's a video of regular supersonic ammo and subsonic ammo through an OGC Raptor.

Link

Crazy.

I want one

man that's still not very silent

 

[Quaggoth]

In my experience it makes a gun a tad more accurate (Or at least more consistent) because you don't get the turbulence just behind the bullet as it exits the barrel (If the supressor is installed "deeply" on a ported barrel as they are supposed to be). velocity generally drops a bit but not much. kinetic energy drops with the velocity. The bullet shouldn't touch the suppressor, but should be very close to it. If you are using a sidearm with a good deal of muzzle flip you need to be able to hold the gun steady. Good candidates for suppression are the glock and the USP. The glock because the barrel is low and has less mechanical advantage to use to rotate the gun around the fulcrum (The part of your hand between the trigger finger and thumb) and the USP especially because the slide comes back and slams into a spring instead of a wall which generates less felt recoil. A USP 45 has about the same feel as a beretta 9mm. The SOCOM is a derivitive of the USP and has the same characteristics but is a "BFG" like the deagle. Awesome gun though, but if you get a USP, get the .40 cal as that is what was originally designed and was then modified into a 9mm, .45, and .357 Magnum. The .40 USP should be used with 165gr. rounds, not the 180's most people like just because "more is better right?" Don't use 170's though as they are VERY!!!LOUD!!!!!

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Quaggoth
In my experience it makes a gun a tad more accurate (Or at least more consistent) because you don't get the turbulence just behind the bullet as it exits the barrel (If the supressor is installed "deeply" on a ported barrel as they are supposed to be). velocity generally drops a bit but not much. kinetic energy drops with the velocity. The bullet shouldn't touch the suppressor, but should be very close to it. If you are using a sidearm with a good deal of muzzle flip you need to be able to hold the gun steady. Good candidates for suppression are the glock and the USP. The glock because the barrel is low and has less mechanical advantage to use to rotate the gun around the fulcrum (The part of your hand between the trigger finger and thumb) and the USP especially because the slide comes back and slams into a spring instead of a wall which generates less felt recoil. A USP 45 has about the same feel as a beretta 9mm. The SOCOM is a derivitive of the USP and has the same characteristics but is a "BFG" like the deagle. Awesome gun though, but if you get a USP, get the .40 cal as that is what was originally designed and was then modified into a 9mm, .45, and .357 Magnum. The .40 USP should be used with 165gr. rounds, not the 180's most people like just because "more is better right?" Don't use 170's though as they are VERY!!!LOUD!!!!!

I'm fairly sure the USP came after the Mark 23 and was designed due to complaints about the size of the Mark 23.

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

thats fkin awesome

-edit-

on a second thought that may be worth its own thread if you feel like it

 

[gigapet]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

wow thats really cool. Why hasnt this made headlines? OH WAIT THATS CUZ THERE IS NO ROOM WITH ALL THE KOBE ARTICLES.


Now back to the trhead topic.....


CAN YOU BUILD A ONE TIME USE SILENCER? HOW?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
the real question is does a silencer weaken the gun's power?

like counterstrike..

It is travelling slower. The force of *gas puls* from the gun powder is at 3000lbs psi normally (taken from the howstuffworks website article) and when it is silenced it is 60lbs psi. It will be weaker but it makes up for that by being quieter.

Koing

Why would that slow the bullet down any more than when the bullet leaves the gun normally, though? I can't imagine the friction sustained during the split second the bullet is in the silencer would have that big of an effect.

It wouldn't. The bullet is hardly any more weak than without the silencer. Might the question be accuracy instead?

If anything you'd think the bullet would be more accurate since it would be in the barrel longer. Longer barrel = more accurate shot. Although, now that I think about it, the inside of the silencer probably isn't, for lack of a better word, corkscrewed like the inside of the barrel is. So I can see how that would reduce accuracy.

Longer barrel = more vibration. Also, longer barrel increases the jumpiness of the tip.

So that's why sniper rifles have 3" barrels...

As a rule, rifles are more accurate than pistols, and long gun tubes designed to be accurate (like, for instance, the 120mm cannons installed on the M1A1, rather than old artillery barrels when the thinking went "hey, its and area weapon, it doesnt need to be accurate"). So, while long guns may vibrate more (ie the Paris gun), a longer barrel does not necessarily make it less accurate (which you seemed to imply). I am not sure it you are referring to muzzle jump as caused by recoil, but if you are, then you are also generally incorrect in practice. A longer barrel is heavier, and a heavier barrel tends to be mounted on a heavier gun (to maintain balance, unless you prefer a more muzzle heavy weapon, which some people do). Heavier gun = less felt recoil and less muzzle jump due to recoil

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

thats fkin awesome

-edit-

on a second thought that may be worth its own thread if you feel like it

let's just hijack this one.

How accurate are the instruments used to measure light at that speed? For example, how were they able to discern the 5-7% faster-than-light speed over a 1m distance as claimed in the 2nd half of that article?

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

thats fkin awesome

-edit-

on a second thought that may be worth its own thread if you feel like it

I considered that, but there arent many details regarding the NEC experiment, at least in my opinion not enough there to justify a thread about it. But, if anyone feels like making a thread about that (maybe one requesting more info), go ahead, maybe drop a link to that thread into this thread...

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

thats fkin awesome

-edit-

on a second thought that may be worth its own thread if you feel like it

let's just hijack this one.

How accurate are the instruments used to measure light at that speed? For example, how were they able to discern the 5-7% faster-than-light speed over a 1m distance as claimed in the 2nd half of that article?

Yeah, we need to find an longer article on the subject. Didn't it say the NYT published soemthing?

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

thats fkin awesome

-edit-

on a second thought that may be worth its own thread if you feel like it

I considered that, but there arent many details regarding the NEC experiment, at least in my opinion not enough there to justify a thread about it. But, if anyone feels like making a thread about that (maybe one requesting more info), go ahead, maybe drop a link to that thread into this thread...

All right I'll fork the load

 

[Mookow]

Originally posted by: Elemental007

Originally posted by: Judgement

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: KingNothing
This thread is now over. Nothing more to see here. Move along.

This has nothing to do with the thread, but it was at the bottom of your link...

Text

thats fkin awesome

-edit-

on a second thought that may be worth its own thread if you feel like it

let's just hijack this one.

How accurate are the instruments used to measure light at that speed? For example, how were they able to discern the 5-7% faster-than-light speed over a 1m distance as claimed in the 2nd half of that article?

I'm sure researchers have looked into it, but it would seem to be either a case of:
-photons travel faster just after they are emitted (which opens a big can of worms)
OR (and, IMO, which is based on Occam's razor, more likely)
-their instruments arent accurate enough and the error in reported time is causing the higher reported speed

 

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
the real question is does a silencer weaken the gun's power?

like counterstrike..

It is travelling slower. The force of *gas puls* from the gun powder is at 3000lbs psi normally (taken from the howstuffworks website article) and when it is silenced it is 60lbs psi. It will be weaker but it makes up for that by being quieter.

Koing

Why would that slow the bullet down any more than when the bullet leaves the gun normally, though? I can't imagine the friction sustained during the split second the bullet is in the silencer would have that big of an effect.

It wouldn't. The bullet is hardly any more weak than without the silencer. Might the question be accuracy instead?

If anything you'd think the bullet would be more accurate since it would be in the barrel longer. Longer barrel = more accurate shot. Although, now that I think about it, the inside of the silencer probably isn't, for lack of a better word, corkscrewed like the inside of the barrel is. So I can see how that would reduce accuracy.

Longer barrel = more vibration. Also, longer barrel increases the jumpiness of the tip.

So that's why sniper rifles have 3" barrels...

As a rule, rifles are more accurate than pistols, and long gun tubes designed to be accurate (like, for instance, the 120mm cannons installed on the M1A1, rather than old artillery barrels when the thinking went "hey, its and area weapon, it doesnt need to be accurate"). So, while long guns may vibrate more (ie the Paris gun), a longer barrel does not necessarily make it less accurate (which you seemed to imply). I am not sure it you are referring to muzzle jump as caused by recoil, but if you are, then you are also generally incorrect in practice. A longer barrel is heavier, and a heavier barrel tends to be mounted on a heavier gun (to maintain balance, unless you prefer a more muzzle heavy weapon, which some people do). Heavier gun = less felt recoil and less muzzle jump due to recoil

pwned

 

[kaizersose]

Originally posted by: Monel Funkawitz
Silencers don't reduce the power or feet per second of the bullet as if shot without the silencer, but it does impart some strange characteristics on the bullet in flight sometimes. Your point of impact will change when you put a can on your barrel and you will have to resight your gun. Still has the same impact power with or without the silencer if you shoot the same ammo.

Silencers are really only effective with subsonic ammo though. Subsonic = reduced powder charge = reduced power = reduced noise.

On average, a good silencer will drop the blast about 30 decibels or so, and they sound NOTHING like they do in the movies.

where did you gain experience on silenced firearms?

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Mookow

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: FFMCobalt

Originally posted by: KingNothing

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
the real question is does a silencer weaken the gun's power?

like counterstrike..

It is travelling slower. The force of *gas puls* from the gun powder is at 3000lbs psi normally (taken from the howstuffworks website article) and when it is silenced it is 60lbs psi. It will be weaker but it makes up for that by being quieter.

Koing

Why would that slow the bullet down any more than when the bullet leaves the gun normally, though? I can't imagine the friction sustained during the split second the bullet is in the silencer would have that big of an effect.

It wouldn't. The bullet is hardly any more weak than without the silencer. Might the question be accuracy instead?

If anything you'd think the bullet would be more accurate since it would be in the barrel longer. Longer barrel = more accurate shot. Although, now that I think about it, the inside of the silencer probably isn't, for lack of a better word, corkscrewed like the inside of the barrel is. So I can see how that would reduce accuracy.

Longer barrel = more vibration. Also, longer barrel increases the jumpiness of the tip.

So that's why sniper rifles have 3" barrels...

As a rule, rifles are more accurate than pistols, and long gun tubes designed to be accurate (like, for instance, the 120mm cannons installed on the M1A1, rather than old artillery barrels when the thinking went "hey, its and area weapon, it doesnt need to be accurate"). So, while long guns may vibrate more (ie the Paris gun), a longer barrel does not necessarily make it less accurate (which you seemed to imply). I am not sure it you are referring to muzzle jump as caused by recoil, but if you are, then you are also generally incorrect in practice. A longer barrel is heavier, and a heavier barrel tends to be mounted on a heavier gun (to maintain balance, unless you prefer a more muzzle heavy weapon, which some people do). Heavier gun = less felt recoil and less muzzle jump due to recoil

pwned

http://www.tacticaloperations.com/SWATbarrel/

Shorter barrels are actually often more accurate than their longer counterparts. A rifle barrel is a cantilevered beam and as such they sag. More sag results in more whip and vibration as the bullet travels down the bore. Barrel sag induces longitudinal stress that can cause stringing of shots. Using a shorter, heavier barrel minimizes reduces stress and accuracy-robbing barrel vibration. A shorter barrel is stiffer and vibrates less.

Oh, and I like your comment about the 3" barrel. You and I both know why sniper rifles don't use 3" barrels.

Also, you can't really make comparisons between the big-bore barrels and rifle barrels. For one, they use different types of projectiles. Two, computer systems in the M1A1 (one of your examples)make adjustments for wind, distance, atmospheric pressure, etc.

 

[Judgement]

Lol you guys keep arguing... obviously they have the longer barrel on rifles for some reason. Most snipers don't strap a scope onto a pistol (assuming it was powerful enough to reach the desired distance) and expect it to be more accurate then a rifle.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: LOLyourFace
the real question is does a silencer weaken the gun's power?

like counterstrike..

please tell me you don't think anything you see in counter-strike is anywhere near realistic

 

[TheNinja]

i wonder why movies and TV shows make silenced guns sound like a high pitched squeak (you know what I"m talking about right?). I guess b/c if it was complete silent you wouldn't know if the guy fired or not? Who knows. And I think a longer barrel is more accurate than a short barrell.....in general. Although after reading the other side of it I can picture some sniper rifles that are a tad shorter, but the big difference in a good rifle is that the barrell on some of those things is insanely thick.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Judgement
Lol you guys keep arguing... obviously they have the longer barrel on rifles for some reason. Most snipers don't strap a scope onto a pistol (assuming it was powerful enough to reach the desired distance) and expect it to be more accurate then a rifle.

I'll admit that the longer the barrel, the better the accuracy and the greater the energy imparted to the bullet - but only to a point.

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Staley8
i wonder why movies and TV shows make silenced guns sound like a high pitched squeak (you know what I"m talking about right?). I guess b/c if it was complete silent you wouldn't know if the guy fired or not? Who knows. And I think a longer barrel is more accurate than a short barrell.....in general. Although after reading the other side of it I can picture some sniper rifles that are a tad shorter, but the big difference in a good rifle is that the barrell on some of those things is insanely thick.

Because that's what it sound slike.

 

[Antoneo]

Hrmm, so is there any truth to the Hollywood classic empty plastic soda bottle turned silencer trick?

 

[Judgement]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Staley8
i wonder why movies and TV shows make silenced guns sound like a high pitched squeak (you know what I"m talking about right?). I guess b/c if it was complete silent you wouldn't know if the guy fired or not? Who knows. And I think a longer barrel is more accurate than a short barrell.....in general. Although after reading the other side of it I can picture some sniper rifles that are a tad shorter, but the big difference in a good rifle is that the barrell on some of those things is insanely thick.

Because that's what it sound slike.

Why does it sound like that? I thought the whole idea was to release the pressure the gases have... a higher pitch to me would make it seem like its more pressure through a smaller hole... like if you whistled.