Actually, they dont muffle the gas, they simply delay its escape just long enough for it to cool. Its the hot gas, and bullets moving past the speed of sound that make the noise.Silencers are don't trap the gas, they just muffle a percentage of it.
I have a suppressor for my AR's, that eliminates 97% of the muzzle blast, and lowers the report to the point I can fire it in my carport, without hearing protection. If I shoot a .22 from a rifle there with out ear plugs, I cant hear for days.The best suppressed guns use tiny, low pressure cartridges, because that big hole at the end of the can is what really matters.
Youre the one telling us it works, so its up to you to prove it. Dont make us do your homework for you.If you would like to find one of them and put a video of how loud they are on youtube, that would be great.
You're right, I haven't tried it. But I worked at a major silencer dealer for two years, I tested countless silencers on various hosts, and I've talked with many silencer manufacturers, so I know a little bit about what I'm talking about.RX-79G said:Everyone always says this. Prove it.
You clearly don't understand how a silencer works.RX-79G said:If you think the cylinder gap is big, you should see the monster hole that goes all the way through the silencer and out the far end. Clearly, this isn't close to a sealed system.
[...]
Silencers are don't trap the gas, they just muffle a percentage of it. If cylinder gaps leaked so badly, revolvers would be terribly inefficient.
Revolvers that were suppressed in the past had some form of gas-seal system for the cylinder gap.RX-79G said:We know that revolvers have been suppressed in the past, so it couldn't have been that much worse than a high pressure .38 Super or 9mm, or a large bore .45.
Cylinder gaps offer a unobstructed channel for the gas to escape. There's nothing like it on a semi-auto, period. And considering the suppressor traps the gas and slows its exit -- sending some of it back down the bore -- this open gap allows for a large amount of hot gasses to escape immediately, something that simply doesn't happen on a semi-auto.RX-79G said:And cylinder gaps account for less than 50 fps of lost energy, and that energy is what makes the noise.
I think it's ridiculous to have strong opinions on a subject you obviously know nothing about. Do you own any silencers? How many different silencers have you fired on how many different hosts? If you had a basic understanding of them, you'd realize why revolvers make such bad suppressor hosts.RX-79G said:I just think it is ridiculous to keep repeating something that is entirely unproven, especially when it used to be done.
Yeah, just like the big hole at the end of the suppressor.Cylinder gaps offer a unobstructed channel for the gas to escape.
It appears this is where your lack of understanding of how a suppressor works comes in.Yeah, just like the big hole at the end of the suppressor.
You are correct and here's 'proof' on that.Another thing is your theory of the size of the hole in the end of the can. I know a number of people who use suppressors made for larger calibers with smaller ones, and have suppression very close to what a caliber specific can gives. A round of 5.56 fired through my buddies 300 B.O. can, is not any louder that I can detect, than a 5.56 fired through my 5.56 caliber specific can.
Unsuppressed avg: 154.45db
9mm dry avg: 125.88
9mm wet avg: 124.71
.45 dry avg: 125.04
.45 wet avg: 123.72
So it is feasible, therefore I do have back up on my assertions?Since NO ONE seems to have any experience with suppressing revolvers, in either direction, leads me to believe it isnt a feasible undertaking, and the reason you have nothing to back up your assertions.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, the cylinder gap was set at .0015" and the cylinders were trued to .0002". There was one on display at a spec ops weapons display that I was lucky enough to attend when active duty back in the 70's.
Since you dont agree, prove to us it isnt. Seems simple enough.Any way you cut it, this is a leaky system, and you're just presuming that the cylinder gap has to be the loudest leak.
No, it's not the same at all. You clearly don't understand how a silencer works.RX-79G said:Yeah, just like the big hole at the end of the suppressor.Theohazard said:Cylinder gaps offer a unobstructed channel for the gas to escape.
Except in this case you don't have any personal experience with silencers at all.RX-79G said:At this point, no one in this thread has ANY experience with a suppressed standard revolver. Even people who have worked with lots of suppressors. So this is just a bad physics argument between two points of view.
"Useless" is a relative term; it's probably going to lower the sound some. But it's definitely loud enough that it makes a lot less sense than suppressing a semi-auto.RX-70G said:why are you all so certain that a silencer on a revolver is useless? I'm sorry I'm not buying the argument that we know "because its obvious" or "because no one does it". Government agencies DID do it, so it must have done something.
Actually, it is your assertion to prove. You're going against common and excepted firearm knowledge. You need to offer something more than what you already have, which is basically nothing; all you've shown so far is a lack of understanding of how a suppressor works and a misguided notion that our government has used conventional revolvers with silencers in the past.RX-79G said:And this is not my assertion to prove. "You can't silence a revolver" is just another one of those firearms "common knowledge" things that is repeated so often that everyone now accepts it as fact, and piles on to anyone who says "Prove it".
You're right, we can't. But we do understand how a silencer works, and we know that the gas escaping from the end of a silencer has had a lot more time to expand, cool, and slow down than the gas coming out of the cylinder gap. And, due to a silencer's back-pressure, there will be even more hot gas coming out of that gap.RX-79G said:A good 9mm suppressor will take subsonic 9mm from 165 down to 125 dB, but .45 has trouble getting down below 140 dB - because it has a bigger hole running through the suppressor. So all the "leaks" in the system matter, but no one here can quantify how much a cylinder gap is worth compared to an extra 2mm of bore diameter.
This is ridiculous. You have no personal experience with suppressors, yet you're willing to make this guess? Have you ever fired a .45 with a good suppressor? If a standard silencer revolver could be that quiet then there would be absolutely no reason to go through all the effort to design custom revolvers to be suppressed. Have you ever fired a blow-back operated .380 with a recoil spring that was too light? It's pretty darn loud, and theres still a lot less gass escaping than there is in a revolver.RX-79G said:I'd be willing to bet that a 3" .38 Special revolver, firing normal pressure subsonic loads through a good 9mm suppressor, will be about as loud as a .45 with a good suppressor.
So you're saying that all the attempts in the last century to modify revolvers for silencer use were all for naught? That everyone in the silencer world is wrong? That every guy who has improperly sized his Nagant ammo and had it improperly seal is just lying about how loud it is? Every guy who has threaded the barrel on a normal revolver, suppressed it, and then said that it was too loud to be worth it is just lying? You're making an extraordinary claim here, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far you've offered zero evidence other than your misunderstanding of how silencers work and your misunderstanding of the history of silenced revolvers.RX-79G said:But that's just my gut feeling, which is equally as worthless as 10 people on an internet forum repeating the same old half truths instead of citing a single reference to verify their claim.
Of course it's feasible. Nobody is arguing that. But whether it's a suppressed Nagant, or a specially-designed silenced revolver like the ones by Dan Wesson or Knights Armament, they all have some manner of converting or sealing the cylinder gap. You're saying that a normal revolver will suppress just fine, which is something you haven't been able to back up at all.RX-79G said:So it is feasible, therefore I do have back up on my assertions?
This is you saying it is going to be louder than unsuppressed.As for suppressing a revolver, it might make a little bit of a difference in the overall sound, but probably not much; too much gas escapes from the cylinder/barrel gap. In addition, traditional silencer designs produce back-pressure, so I would think it might actually sound louder to the shooter because of the back-pressure pushing more gas back through the cylinder/barrel gap.
And that's A103K saying it is not feasible.leads me to believe it isnt a feasible undertaking
I've talked to people who've played around with Nagants, and I've read a few forums where people have threaded and suppressed normal revolvers (usually .22s) and reported that they're pretty loud and not worth it. So nothing solid that you'll accept as evidence, but it's a lot more than you've offered so far.RX-79G said:Who are these people you're talking about who have suppressed revolvers, and where can we all read their experience?
You didn't. Consider it an educated guess based on your lack of understanding of how a silencer works.RX-79G said:And where did I say I have no experience with suppressors? Or is that just "common knowledge"?
That's something I can't say considering I've never personally tried it. Back when I worked at an 07/02 FFL I actually wanted to try it; I wanted to find an old .38 and put my Octane on it. Our gunsmith was extremely experienced with suppressors and even had some experience with a specially modified and silenced S&W 629. But he didn't want to thread the barrel for me; he said it was a waste of his time and it would suck anyway. Basically he though I was being ridiculous for even trying.RX-79G said:I completely agree that a cylinder gap is going to be noisier. Since you have so much experience, how much noisier? 15 dB? 25?