Theohazard
New member
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.RX-79G said: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.
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.
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.RX-79G said: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.