.243 Silencer??

Most centerfire rifle ammo is supersonic, considering Mach is only ~1100 ft/s at sea level. That doesn't mean you can't suppress the caliber.

If you load full speed ammo, it'll be quieter than unsuppressed, but you'll still have the Mach crack. You can also download heavyweight bullets in the subsonic range.

Any .308 suppressor will work for you with .243, provided you have the right muzzle threads. A specialty .243 suppressor would work better, but 6.8 guys are using .308 cans on their 6.8/.277 barrels with good results.
 
i realize that the .243 is supersonic......

i just wanna do it to take some of the boom off.....ya know what i mean.....
 
Last edited:
Seriously, you need to learn some manners!
Certainly, you can lower the sound level, but not to nearly the point of a subsonic round-hence "you can not effectively supress a supersonic caliber."
 
People who say again and again that you can't effectively silence a supersonic caliber need to shut up. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's like saying pistol grip guns are for "spraying from the hip". 100% wrong and instantly exposes the individual as someone who does not know what they are talking about.

Of course supersonic rounds can be effectively suppressed. Compared to the muzzle blast, the sonic crack is not very loud at all. It is also difficult for people, or animals, to determine a direction a shot came from from the sonic crack. They only hear it as the bullet passes and the crack also reflects off nearby objects.

The crack instantly tells an animal that something is up, but without the muzzle report, it can't tell where the shot came from.

Now, for a .243 suppressor. I am not aware of any manufacturers that make a .243 suppressor. A friend has a YHM Phantom 7.62 that he has mounted on his AR-15 in 5.56. I was surprised how well it suppressed despite being a .308 can. Not as quiet as my TAC-16, but certainly hearing safe. (Though it might be because he was shooting an AR-15 and my TAC-16 is on a T/C Encore.

Video is a very poor way to gauge suppressor performance as the mic clips the sound. The best way to gauge a suppressors performance is in person. Here is my friend with his Phantom 7.62. He is wearing muffs when he shoots it suppressed, but I was with him a few weeks ago when he was shooting it and it was hearing safe for the operator, a bit louder to the side of him, but still a vast improvement over unsuppressed.

YHM Phantom 7.62 QD & YHM Cobra M2 9mm

The reality is that there isn't a demand for a dedicated .243 suppressor. From what I have read, most people just use a .308 suppressor and get good performance.

So you could either contact a manufacturer and have a custom job built or just get a .308 suppressor.

The manufacturers I would recommend are Advanced Armament Corp and Yankee Hill Machine. Though there are others.

Silencer Research has some very good info, but some of the review require you to pay to see. Not unexpected, paying for suppressors and the NFA tax is expensive. http://www.silencerresearch.com/

I like the Silencer Talk forum as well. http://www.silencertalk.com Robert Silvers does work for AAC, but they welcome discussion on other suppressors manufacturers and are much more open than other forums. (You really have to work at it to get banned there.) Try a little of everywhere and don't just rely on one source.

Whatever you do, don't go to AR-15.com for suppressor advice. The mods here frown on "bashing" other forums here so I won't go into details and leave it at that.

Edit:

Seriously, you need to learn some manners!
Certainly, you can lower the sound level, but not to nearly the point of a subsonic round-hence "you can not effectively supress a supersonic caliber."
Click to expand...

No, you need to learn what you are talking about.

Muzzle noise and bullet noise are two completely different things. Quit treating them as one problem. Suppressors only deal with the muzzle report. Subsonic or supersonic, it does not matter. They can both be effectively suppressed. (Being safe to use without hearing protection, under 140 dB.) Yes a combination of subsonic/suppressed will be quieter overall. That is not the question that is being asked.

Saying a supersonic round cannot be effectively suppressed is like saying that a gun with a pistol grip is made to be sprayed from the hip. Factually and intellectually dishonest.
 
Last edited:
Those who suggest supersonic rounds can not be effectivly silenced have done too much reading and listening to people at gun shows, and not enough shooting. It is well worth the effort.

From other posts I see you are not 21 yet, so your only option would be to buy one from an individual, which means a $400 tax hit, or to build one yourself.


30 cal would be the std. production item, smaller manuf. would do a custom .243 but 30cal would handle all your calibers smaller.
 
Excellent post Crosshair. The only thing I can add is that while a rifle, say the AR-15, can be suppressed well enough to avoid using ear plugs, shooting in an enclosed area or under weather protection can increase the suppressed noise level enough to damage hearing.

I tried making a video to demostrate the difference between suppressed and unsuppressed gunfire, but is was a complete failure. What played back on the TV or computer showed hardly any difference, probably due to the cheap microphone failing to record the peak impulse of the unsuppressed gunfire.

For anyone with access to a lathe, I recommend making their own silencers. While you may need to make them a bit bulkier to compare in suppresssion to the pros, it is a rewarding experience and can result in saving money if you make several. The ATF will approve a form 1 as long as you are 18 and live in a state where they are legal.

Ranb
 
Build One

Dont break the law. When I was in South Africa last year I shot a 6mm/303 enfeild that had a homemade can. I had brought a laser and night scope with me . I was a on a springbuck cull hunt and shot 12 of them one after the other.
There easy to make. The one I use made a fair amount of noise but, the critters didnt know where the shot came form.
 
.243 Sound moderator

Hi there.

Just joined this forum and posting for the first time.

I came accross this thread whilst looking for info on subsonic .243 reloading data.

Sound moderators here in the UK are sold along generic caliber lines i.e. .22, .25, .30 etc.
I have 2 Ase Utra (http://aseutra.fi/english/index.html) moderators, one in .25 and .30. Up until recently I only the .30 and
used that on my .308 as well as my .243. My mark 1 ear could not tell the difference in sound moderation, although
my guess is that using instruments you would find that it would be louder in a .243 as more gas would probably escape with
the smaller calibre bullet and bigger mod muzzle diameter.
The only reason I bought the .25 mod was because I acquired a 2nd hand custom 6x47 lapua Remy700where the muzzle thread was
different to my .30 mod.


I have very effectively loaded subsonic .308 using 150gr and 180gr cast bullets and fast burning pistol
powders such as red dot and bullseye. They are very accurate in the 50-70yd range (less than 1 inch).
At 100 yds they open up to 2-3 inches with some flyers out to 6inches - still haven't got to the bottom of
why accuracy drops off so quickly, particularly as the bullet is still stable at 100 yds.
The sound moderation is excellent - all you can hear is 'wooshing' sound accompanied with a tinny vibration
from the moderator. It is possible to see the bullet in flight through the scope and here the 'thwack' as it strikes the target.

With supersonic loads, moderators are extremely effective at reducing muzzle report and as has already been pointed out the
ballistic crack is considerably quieter than the sound of the muzzle report.
Another significant benefit is that moderators significantly reduce felt recoil - particularly true on my .308.

I recently tried loading subsonic for the .243. This was not very sucessful and I ended up with a round (jacketed) stuck in the barrel.
This was removed at the cost of a cleaning rod (handle smashed) and a 5mm brass punch (end sawn off).
Clearly there are safety issues! However, I would say that it was very obvious that the round was stuck - there was no recoil or sound.
I am going to persevere with the .243, but with cast bullets this time.
 
I like the Silencer Talk forum as well. http://www.silencertalk.com Robert Silvers does work for AAC, but they welcome discussion on other suppressors manufacturers and are much more open than other forums. (You really have to work at it to get banned there.)
Click to expand...

AAC sued a poster over at AR15.com for disparaging their suppressors, so while you might have to work at getting banned, it looks like they are quite willing to drop lawyers on people. Considering how rare that happens despite some of the outrageous slander on the Internet, I think it says a lot about AAC.
 
AAC's market is small, so it makes them vastly more sensitive to slandering of their business than many others. Having virtually no resale market, very little to no mainstream firearms community exposure and in-store advertising, and horrid regulatory impediment on their market makes it even worse, so suffice it to say I understand their position.

What Gemtech did in suing AAC and getting the ATF to impose what is referred to as the "GemTax" is much, much worse.
 
AAC sued a poster over at AR15.com for disparaging their suppressors, so while you might have to work at getting banned, it looks like they are quite willing to drop lawyers on people. Considering how rare that happens despite some of the outrageous slander on the Internet, I think it says a lot about AAC.
Click to expand...
I read up on both sides of the case That lawsuit was for libel against AAC. That poster made statements about AAC and their business/government contracts and said they were factual. They had been doing so repeatedly over a long period of time. I would have sued them too. People have been successfully sued for libel for much lesser statements. If you keep poking a bull in the butt eventually it is going to turn around and stomp you into the ground.

It is one thing to say your opinion about a product. It is another things to repeat a rumor about a product. It is another to say things and repeatedly say that they are 100% factual. This lawsuit is essentially telling that poster to "put up or shut up." AAC says the statement that person made are false, if they are, then that person is in world a world of hurt. "Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true", are generally protected, reading through everything one sees that the poster probably won't be protected.

Either way, the poster brought it up upon themselves for making statements, claiming they were fact, and not backing them up.

"The can sounded like it was made of plumbing parts when I shot it." is not libel.
"I think the can is made out of plumbing parts." is not libel.
"I have a source that tells me that their cans are made of plumbing parts." is libel, as you are asserting that your statement is factual and not just an opinion. Doing this once, you would probably be able to get away with it by claiming that statement was "made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true". Doing it multiple times over a long period of time, continually asserting that it is factual, and you are going to get sued.

In cases like this, the burden of proof generally lies on the plaintiff to prove injury.
 
Yellowfin said:
What Gemtech did in suing AAC and getting the ATF to impose what is referred to as the "GemTax" is much, much worse.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I don't follow Internet drama all that closely; but my understanding is that the "GemTax" refers to Gemtech sending the ATF a letter asking whether they can repair a suppressor where the outer tube has been damaged without "manufacturing" a new suppressor and requiring another $200 transfer tax.

ATF answered "No, you cannot." This should not have come as any surprise since ATF had already answered this same question in 1999 and had given the same answer. So I am not sure how Gemtech is to blame for this since A) They did not make the ruling and B) They weren't even the first person to ask the question. All they did was ask what the law was.

As for Gemtech suing AAC, are you sure you aren't confusing SureFire, LLC v. Advanced Armament Corp., SACV 08-1405 DOC (C.D. Cal. 2008) with Gemtech?

Crosshair said:
"I have a source that tells me that their cans are made of plumbing parts." is libel, as you are asserting that your statement is factual and not just an opinion.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, even if the story is false, the only thing being asserted is that the poster has a source. If he does have a source and if he reasonably believes that source to be true, then that isn't libel.

As far as AAC, I won't be doing any business with them. I've read the original controversy. Lots of small firearms companies seem to do just fine either posting their response in the forum or even not responding at all without involving lawyers. AAC sued in hopes of stopping that guy from speaking his mind. I don't have any interest in doing business with any company that is that quick on the draw.

I look forward to seeing the case though. I don't think that is going to turn out near as well for AAC as just leaving it alone would have.
 
I will say this - for the money, AAC products cannot be beat, and their customer service is top notch.


I just wouldn't be friends with Mr. Silvers, personally.
 
So what about the Gemtech G5 video test? Seeing the actual construction of the G5 vs the claimed construction was certainly revealing. Fully welded core my foot. My TAC-16 is built better.

Then there was Surefire claiming that their cans could withstand 1,500 rounds fired full auto on an M4, stopping only long enough to change magazines. This is interesting since the military determined in testing that catastrophic failure on an M4 occurs at about 600 rounds of sustained FA fire.

Then Surefre sued AAC because AAC used a surefire can in an ad. Even though Surefire was not named in the ad. Though to be fair AAC shouldn't have used a dirty Surefire can for the comparison.

It's a tight market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top