Do silencers work? Are they worth it?

[smee78]

Yes I think they are worth it.

It makes teaching young & new shooters alot easier with out the bark from the gun. You would be surprised at how much a new shooter will react to a gun when the bang is reduced and all they feel is a little push in their shoulder. I love my 22LR can and makes shooting alot more user friendly.

Its funny that alot of states say you have to use mufflers on your car because they are so loud with out one, but its just the opposite on a gun. I have been to ranges where everyone is using cans and it is a alot more enjoyable for everyone there.

They really are not that expensive when you realize how many guns they can fit on.

 

[Sharkbite]

A suppressor is just that it suppresses the noise of the weapon a muffler if you will no more, it does nothing to the velocity of the bullet.
A silencer actually silences the weapon (mostly pistols) by lowering the velocity of the bullet below the speed of sound and quieting the round before it leaves the barrel.

The only suppressed weapon i have any experience with that "slows" the bullet down is the MP5sd. It does that by means of a reflex type can over a ported BARREL. The ports allow gas to enter the can eariler and increases the sound suppression. That also reduces the pressure behind the bullet thus slowing it.

Normally supersonic ammo exits at subsonic velocities and its pretty quiet.

No pistol can i know of slows bullets as they pass. In fact most cans "boost" speeds a small bit

 

[Theohazard]

The only suppressed weapon i have any experience with that "slows" the bullet down is the MP5sd. It does that by means of a reflex type can over a ported BARREL. The ports allow gas to enter the can eariler and increases the sound suppression. That also reduces the pressure behind the bullet thus slowing it.

Another similar design is the Gemtech Mist-22, which is an integrally-suppressed 10/22 barrel. The Mist has a fairly common design that includes a port in the barrel just in front of the chamber that keeps most ammo subsonic. Normally, most .22 ammo is subsonic in a pistol but supersonic in longer barrels, but the hole in the barrel bleeds off enough pressure that most ammo stays subsonic even in the longer barrel of the Mist. Some other designs I've seen include multiple ports, but the idea is the same.

And the Mist is like the MP5-SD in that the bullet never actually slows down inside the barrel, instead it simply has less acceleration than in a similar-length barrel because of the ports. So instead of being slowed from supersonic to subsonic, it simply never reaches a supersonic speed to begin with.

I've also see designs similar to the MP5-SD used in full-power centerfire rifle suppressors. The idea wasn't to keep the bullet subsonic, it was simply to make the suppressor as quiet as possible. One design was a custom-suppressed Steyr bolt-action .308. Normal ammo still went supersonic, but the barrel ports and the reflex design made it quieter than any .308 can I've ever heard.

No pistol can i know of slows bullets as they pass. In fact most cans "boost" speeds a small bit

A few current pistol cans use rubber wipes that the bullet passes through. These wipes are often used to keep an ablative from leaking out of the silencer, and they can also aid in the overall sound suppression process. Older designs used materials like leather or steel wool that the bullet passed through, and this also helped quiet the silencer even more than the baffles alone. These obstructions did slow the bullet down, but probably not by much. And the whole purpose of these designs wasn't to slow the bullet down, it was to help quiet down the propellant gasses even more than normal.

But these days baffle design technology has gotten good enough that modern silencers are super-quiet even without anything touching the bullet. So almost all modern silencer designs are just like Sharkbite says: Nothing touches the bullet; they don't slow the bullet down and they even can boost the bullet velocity a little bit. Though there are a few exceptions to this, the Degroat Nano and the Thompson Poseidon come to mind. These are micro cans designed to be shot "wet", and they have rubber wipes that hold in the ablative until you start shooting (they're also supposed to help the suppression process, but it's unclear how much difference they make compared to the ablative). In theory, the wipes will slow the bullet a little, but probably not by a noticable amount.

There are many different designs of silencers/suppressors, but the two words are still interchangeable and refer to the same thing.

 

[Theohazard]

A silencer actually silences the weapon

No silencer/suppressor truly "silences" the weapon; it's simply called a "silencer" because that's the name the original inventor gave it. Even the quietest centerfire pistol-caliber silencers ever made will still be over 120 dB, which is far from silent.

can't hunt with them

They may not be legal to hunt with in your state, but they're legal for hunting in 32 other states.

 

[Theohazard]

I have seen witness statements to the effect that an M1903 rifle with a Maxim silencer was quiet enough that the loudest noise was the click of the firing pin falling. (Of course that was inside a building, firing into sandbags, so the bullet noise down range was not a factor.)

But the Maxim is an extremely complex and expensive device, far from the simple baffles of modern suppressors.

The Maxim Silencer wasn't all that complicated, and its baffle design was less efficient than most modern designs. Modern baffle designs have progressed quite a bit from Maxim's day.

Those witness statements can't be accurate. I've fired subsonic .308 out of an integrally-suppressed rifle that had a ported-barrel reflex design that was much more efficient than Maxim's design, and the sound of the gunshot was still noticably louder than the firing pin. Sure, it was super-quiet, but there's simply no way to bring a centerfire rifle shot down to less than the sound of the firing pin; not without having a ridiculously large silencer or ridiculously under-powered ammo.

 

[Theohazard]

One thing I've noticed is that historical accounts of a silencer's quietness are often greatly exaggerated. Modern accounts are often also exaggerated, but now we have modern measuring equipment that can very accurately measure the silencer's decibel level.

One example is the Delisle Carbine, which was an integrally-suppressed bolt-action .45 ACP carbine used by the British in WWII. Legend has it that it was one of the quietest suppressed firearms ever built, and at the time is was metered at 85 dB, which is far quieter than any modern silencer.

But that number doesn't make any sense, most firing pins alone are far louder than 85 dB; I've seen a test done by Major Malfunction that showed the Model 700's firing pin is 105 dB when dry-fired. This discrepancy was cleared up when Stalking Rhino Industries got ahold of a Delisle Carbine and tested it, and it metered around 128 dB. So it was actually about the same as most modern detachable .45 suppressors that are much smaller.

It's pretty clear that that the 1940s technology used to measure the Delisle Carbine was simply inaccurate. And, like most subjective accounts of silencers' quietness, the witness accounts were also unreliable and innaccurate.

 

[TMD]

Funniest thread I've read in a while and yes there's $800 in tax stamps in the picture. Just doing my part to reduce the national deficit

 

[44 AMP]

It's pretty clear that that the 1940s technology used to measure the Delisle Carbine was simply inaccurate.

We have much "better" (more precise, more accurate) ways to measure many things today than they did in the 40s, or back at the turn of the 20th century.

However, we don't always draw the right conclusions from modern measurements. Pressure is one area where things can get very confusing, but that is a subject for another thread.

All "silencers" work on the same general principle. The chambers & baffles, etc., provide extra area for the gas to occupy, slowing down the bulk of the gas, delaying its exit from the muzzle, slightly. This reduces the muzzle blast. The delay is very short, to our human senses, but it's enough to keep the gas from all coming out in one big bang.

Think of a tire, and the fairly loud hiss you get if you cut off the valve stem, versus the loud BANG of a blowout. Both vent the pressure, but make much different sounds, due to the time spread of the gas release.

Different designs do it different methods, with differing degrees of success, but the general principle remains the same. By changing the rate the bulk of the gas exits the muzzle after the bullet, the sound is changed.

 

[dakota.potts]

I think they're well worth it if you're in a position to spend the money. I don't own one yet, but I've shot a number of them. They just make shooting a lot more enjoyable. Less noise, less recoil, less flash. If they were unregulated as muzzle brakes are, I think I'd have one for every gun - or at least every caliber - I shoot. They'd be great for hunting too so you didn't have to wear hearing protection. Many of them are hearing safe for one or two shots, and that's usually all you need for hunting.

One thing that sticks out to me is the Tikka I shot suppressed. It was in .300 Win Mag. A very light rifle, I'd be surprised if it had weighed 7 or 8 pounds with the scope and suppressor. With the Silencerco Harvester, it was really sweet to shoot. I was amazed at the recoil. I had always heard .300 Win Mag recoil was fairly sharp, and I expected a kick out of the rifle. Instead I got a slow, smooth push. I'd honestly rate it to kick about as hard as our very heavy R700 in .308

 

[SR420]

Do silencers work? Are they worth it?

Yes & Yes

 

[sikiguya]

I can't speak for anyone else...but I get a silly ass grin every time I shoot my suppressed guns!

 

[HKGuns]

They work extremely well, this one is hearing safe without ears.

http://youtu.be/WkHjZQZ7dpQ

 

[Theohazard]

They work extremely well, this one is hearing safe without ears.

No, it's not. If you shoot that without hearing protection, you will permanently damage your hearing fairly quickly. It might take a while for that damage to become noticable, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Your Octane 45 is about 130 dB at best; that's louder than a jackhammer and loud enough to easily damage your hearing.

No silencer is medically hearing safe. Repeated exposure to noises as low as 85 dB can cause hearing damage. Here's a good link from the American Hearing Research Foundation:

http://american-hearing.org/disorders/noise-induced-hearing-loss/

"Habitual exposure to noise above 85 dB will cause a gradual hearing loss in a significant number of individuals, and louder noises will accelerate this damage. [...] The highest permissible noise exposure for the unprotected ear is 115 dB for 15 minutes per day."

In contrast, the quietest .22 silencers on the market rarely get a shot down below 115 dB. Most pistol silencers are between 125 and 130 dB. Most rifle silencers are between 133 and 138 dB.

Silencers definitely make a huge difference, that's why I own three of them and I plan to buy more. But claiming they're "hearing safe" is incorrect and irresponsible. The industry bases their claims of a silencer being "hearing safe" on a misinterpretation of OSHA rules, and that claim is disingenuous at best.

 

[AK103K]

No, it's not. If you shoot that without hearing protection, you will permanently damage your hearing fairly quickly. It might take a while for that damage to become noticable, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. Your Octane 45 is about 130 dB at best; that's louder than a jackhammer and loud enough to easily damage your hearing.

I suppose "constant" exposure to anything over a whisper will eventually cause you to lose hearing.

I run and Im exposed to jackhamers, and a lot of other "loud" things at work on a daily basis, and a hundred rounds of even super sonic ammo through my my 9mm Glocks/Evo-9, are quieter and easier on my ears than just 30 seconds or so, of running or standing next to a jack hammer and/or its compressor. Even .223's through my M4-2000 are quieter.

For me, I consider things that dont immediately impact my hearing, to be "hearing safe". Not that they are over time, but if they dont cause me to lose, or reduce my hearing for a couple of days after, Id say they are "safer". A unsurpressed .22, or even an air rifle in some cases, will leave my ears ringing loudly, and my hearing muffled, and for a couple of days. I dont get that with the suppressed guns.

 

[Theohazard]

I suppose "constant" exposure to anything over a whisper will eventually cause you to lose hearing.

According to most experts, the threshold is about 85 to 90 dB, which is a lot louder than a whisper.

I run and Im exposed to jackhamers, and a lot of other "loud" things at work on a daily basis, and a hundred rounds of even super sonic ammo through my my 9mm Glocks/Evo-9, are quieter and easier on my ears than just 30 seconds or so, of running or standing next to a jack hammer and/or its compressor. Even .223's through my M4-2000 are quieter.

It's possible that it's easier on your ears, but without objective scientific measurement you really don't have any way to know that for sure. Simply guessing based on which one hurts less isn't a very accurate measurement.

Every source I can find measured a jackhammer at 130 dB or less, and some measure it as low as 100 dB. Obviously this variance has to do with the differences in measuring equipment and differences in the jackhammers themselves, but considering your M4-2000 meters around 135 dB, I think it's safe to say that the jackhammer is probably quieter from a decibel standpoint.

Now, the jackhammer is a deeper and more constant noise than the gunfire, so that's probably why it sounds quieter to you. Also, because the jackhammer is a more constant noise than the gunfire, it might take less time to produce damage even though it's a quieter sound. But either way, both of those are hurting your hearing.

For me, I consider things that dont immediately impact my hearing, to be "hearing safe". Not that they are over time, but if they dont cause me to lose, or reduce my hearing for a couple of days after, Id say they are "safer". A unsurpressed .22, or even an air rifle in some cases, will leave my ears ringing loudly, and my hearing muffled, and for a couple of days. I dont get that with the suppressed guns.

Just because your suppressed guns don't cause your ears to ring and don't cause your hearing to reduce noticably, that doesn't mean they're safe on your ears. When you shoot your suppressed guns -- especially your .223 with the M4-2000 -- you're subjecting your ears to a decibel level that's well over the limit for permanent hearing loss. That loss might not be noticable to you, and it might be minor enough that you're willing to ignore it in order to enjoy the convenience of not wearing hearing protection, but medical science tell us that it is happening.

 

[AK103K]

Im not debating the science, only what I personally experience. Certain things are loud enough to cause my ears to hurt and deaden my hearing, so far, suppressed firearms are not one of them.

Im sure my IPod's, the constant roar of a heavy construction environment, loud equipment, and heavy tools, etc, are doing or have done, more damage to my ears, than the suppressed firearms I shoot.

I do know that I "have" to wear ear plugs with even the smallest caliber guns, when shooting without a suppressor, yet I have no discomfort and/or deadening of my hearing, even after extended range sessions, with rifle caliber guns that are suppressed.

Like the usual ballistics arguments, I think the problem with throwing paper "numbers" around is, things tend to get silly, and hairs split, over things that really dont mean a lot, except in the perfect world of numbers.

Even though I do shoot a lot, and a small portion of that is suppressed shooting, I dont find its as much of a cause to worry, as what I encounter in my daily activities. I wear ear plugs at work, and almost always when I shoot things without a suppressor. I dont normally wear them when I do use the suppressor, as one of the main reasons for them, is to allow me to do so.

 

[A pause for the COZ]

They do reduce the report from all loads.
But it is when you match the gun, load and suppressor, That you get great results.

If you match 22cal subsonic bullets to you suppressed rig. They are pretty quite.
Same with 300 Black out. load those big fatties running around 1000 fps in your gun and they are pretty quite.

 

[HKGuns]

I guess I'll just change my name to Mr. Irresponsible, regardless of what the numbers say and most of those numbers are not measured at your ears. I find it very easy to shoot that combination without hearing protection.

Either way, settle down, no reason for you to get all worked up into a lather over it.

 

[Pond James Pond]

Either way, settle down, no reason for you to get all worked up into a lather over it.

The way I see it you decide what to do with your ears but posters like Theohazard who clearly know a lot about suppressor performance and its affect on users, give you the facts so that you can make a fully informed decision.

I don't see that as getting all worked up, I see that as doing you a massive favour....

You may feel differently.

 

[Theohazard]

I guess I'll just change my name to Mr. Irresponsible, regardless of what the numbers say and most of those numbers are not measured at your ears. I find it very easy to shoot that combination without hearing protection.

I apologize if I offended you, but my statement was simply a fact: Your silencer is not "hearing safe", and if someone follows your advice they will get hearing damage. That damage might take a while to be noticable, but it's still happening.

Those numbers are measured at the muzzle of the firearm, but the decibel readings at the ear are no more than a few decibels different. No matter which way you measure it, your Octane 45 is well above the threshold for permanent hearing damage and is far from being "hearing safe", no matter what your subjective experience might try to tell you.

Either way, settle down, no reason for you to get all worked up into a lather over it.

Like James said, I'm not worked up at all, I'm simply trying to inform you that your can is not actually "hearing safe".

If you choose to keep shooting without hearing protection, that's fine; I'll admit that sometimes I don't wear hearing protection when I shoot my Octane 9 outdoors. But if someone decides to not wear hearing protection, don't you think it's better if they know the potential risks involved?

This is a popular public gun forum, it's important for us to not spread bad information that could potentially lead to unexpected hearing loss.