Does a silencer works on a revolver?
- Thread starter usmarine
- Start date
Blind Tree Frog
New member
It doesn't because of the gap between the cylinder and barrell. There have been revolvers made that fit tightly though and thus a silencer does work (an old English rifle comes to mind, but I can't remember the info for it)
As they have been made for even conventional revolvers, I would say they must work to a certain extent.
DPris, BTF, what experience are you basing your statements on?
One must keep in mind that the cylinder gap leaks, but not even as much as barrel porting. The suppressor itself leaks, too. It is the amount of leakage that is the issue, not the existance of places for gas to escape.
Autos blow alot out the breech during ejection, too.
DPris, BTF, what experience are you basing your statements on?
One must keep in mind that the cylinder gap leaks, but not even as much as barrel porting. The suppressor itself leaks, too. It is the amount of leakage that is the issue, not the existance of places for gas to escape.
Autos blow alot out the breech during ejection, too.
Mike Irwin
Staff
Specially designed and fitted, yes, a suppressor will work.
The Soviets also made suppressors for their Nagant gas seal revolver.
The Soviets also made suppressors for their Nagant gas seal revolver.
OK, let's say generally speaking, they do not work as well as on a pistol without special mods to the revolver, and generally speaking they do not work as well as they do in the movies.
They will reduce the decibels somewhat, but you still have the barrel/cylinder gap to deal with, as noted above.
I should have been more specific.
Denis
They will reduce the decibels somewhat, but you still have the barrel/cylinder gap to deal with, as noted above.
I should have been more specific.
Denis
Supressors on revolvers?
Yes, they work. Yes, there is some sound from the cylinder gap, but it's not much. The total is much less noticible than from an unsuppressed revolver.
I am amused by the comment regarding "...special mods to the revolver..." Something never mentioned is the problem of hanging a suppressor can on either the slide or barrel of a locked breech semi-automatic pistol. This drastically changes the weight and spring balance of the pistol, usually resulting in a manually operated 'pump action' repeater. Obviously, hanging a suppressor on the barrel of a blowback pistol will not cause any problems, but more serious calibers require more engineering.
What tickles me is the movie suppressors are only an inch in diameter and less than five inches long. That would be very nice.
Yes, they work. Yes, there is some sound from the cylinder gap, but it's not much. The total is much less noticible than from an unsuppressed revolver.
I am amused by the comment regarding "...special mods to the revolver..." Something never mentioned is the problem of hanging a suppressor can on either the slide or barrel of a locked breech semi-automatic pistol. This drastically changes the weight and spring balance of the pistol, usually resulting in a manually operated 'pump action' repeater. Obviously, hanging a suppressor on the barrel of a blowback pistol will not cause any problems, but more serious calibers require more engineering.
What tickles me is the movie suppressors are only an inch in diameter and less than five inches long. That would be very nice.
Since you seem to know all about it.Handy,
I've noticed, in the short amount of time since I started running across you on the internet, that you can be a crotchety & contrary type.
So can I.
But let's not bother with each other, OK?
If you see something I post, either take it or leave it & move on.
I couldn't care less what your opinions are & have no interest in arguing mine.
Deal?
Denis
I've noticed, in the short amount of time since I started running across you on the internet, that you can be a crotchety & contrary type.
So can I.
But let's not bother with each other, OK?
If you see something I post, either take it or leave it & move on.
I couldn't care less what your opinions are & have no interest in arguing mine.
Deal?
Denis
Fair enough.
But, my "fact-o-meter" just tends to go off when I see oft-repeated but unvarified "truths" posted here as facts by people that have no way of knowing either way.
Asking for your experience in the first post wasn't calling you out, just asking how you came upon your data. But your second post didn't answer that question.
But, my "fact-o-meter" just tends to go off when I see oft-repeated but unvarified "truths" posted here as facts by people that have no way of knowing either way.
Asking for your experience in the first post wasn't calling you out, just asking how you came upon your data. But your second post didn't answer that question.
Handy,
Have I ever asked you for chapter & verse on some of your posts I consider to be nonsense?
Did I ask you for the exact source of all the information to support your statements on the .357 SIG IN A .357 Mag post? Did I ask you if you tried the loads & guns you mentioned? Did I ask you for the basis for your statement that the only thing that matters in feeding is the part of the bullet that meets the feedramp & your apparent assertion that a bottleneck doesn't feed any better than a straight walled cartridge?
Nope.
You're not worth arguing with. My experience tells me differently.
In any written statement I ever make, anywhere, you and any other reader are perfectly free to accept or reject what I say if it either makes sense to you or doesn't.
Last response to you.
Denis
Have I ever asked you for chapter & verse on some of your posts I consider to be nonsense?
Did I ask you for the exact source of all the information to support your statements on the .357 SIG IN A .357 Mag post? Did I ask you if you tried the loads & guns you mentioned? Did I ask you for the basis for your statement that the only thing that matters in feeding is the part of the bullet that meets the feedramp & your apparent assertion that a bottleneck doesn't feed any better than a straight walled cartridge?
Nope.
You're not worth arguing with. My experience tells me differently.
In any written statement I ever make, anywhere, you and any other reader are perfectly free to accept or reject what I say if it either makes sense to you or doesn't.
Last response to you.
Denis
Blind Tree Frog
New member
While I was thinking that it doesn't work at all, it makes sense that a silencer would work somewhat. I don't remember where I picked this up though. Probably same place as the next part.
History Channel documentary on weapons used in WW2... I think 2. Might of been 1. Been a while since I saw it.
Guy B. Meredith
New member
I would like to see tests performed to quantify the effects on a revolver with uncovered B/C gap. Noise is made by gases at speed and the B/C gap should be venting the gas at a (almost neglible maybe) higher speed than the muzzle.
I do know that a greater portion of the observable flame I see on my revolvers is from the B/C gap rather than the muzzle.
I do know that a greater portion of the observable flame I see on my revolvers is from the B/C gap rather than the muzzle.
USMarine,
To try to answer your original question in a little more detail.
The sound you hear when you fire a shot from a typical gun is from the powder burning so rapidly it "explodes". In this type of explosion you get sound waves concurrent with the expanding gases that propel the bullet down & through the bore. If you're also shooting supersonic loads, where the bullet velocity exceeds the speed of sound, you also get a sonic boom (or crack) similar to the one a jet plane creates when it breaks the so-called Sound Barrier and actually travels faster than sound.
The most efficient sound suppression with firearms occurs with two elements: reducing the sound waves from the powder explosion, and removing the sonic boom with the ammunition.
The second can be relatively easy, done by using sub-sonic ammo that propels the bullet at a velocity slower than the speed of sound.
The first is more complex, and depends on a sealed gas system at the moment of firing for maximum effectiveness.
In an autopistol, you have no barrel/cylinder gap and only one way for the burning gases and sound waves to go- forward through the barrel. A good suppressor re-directs the gases and soundwaves through a series of internal baffles and/or a "packing" medium (either wet or dry) to reduce the velocity of the gases along with the sound produced at ignition.
You can reduce the DB output of a revolver with a suppressor to work on the gases exiting the muzzle, and by using sub-sonic ammo, but you don't have a sealed gas system in most revolvers and you'll get at least some loud noise along with escaping gases through the barrel/cylinder gap. How much exactly, I have no idea. Nor do I want to go to the expense of getting the federal tax stamp, buying a typical sample revolver, buying a suppressor, having the barrel modified to accept it, and scaring up a DB meter to test the idea with, fun though it might be.
The reason a Nagant revolver would work better than a "normal" revolver is because the design cams the cylinder forward at the moment of ignition to provide a seal where the barrel/cylinder gap would normally be. That could be quite effectively suppressed, if you had a good tight seal there.
If a revolver could be silenced anywhere near as effectively as a pistol, you'd see them in use by the serious operators. I'm not saying it's never been done, or that it may not be done somewhere today, it just doesn't work as effectively on a standard revolver as it does on a number of pistol designs.
Hope that helps.
Denis
To try to answer your original question in a little more detail.
The sound you hear when you fire a shot from a typical gun is from the powder burning so rapidly it "explodes". In this type of explosion you get sound waves concurrent with the expanding gases that propel the bullet down & through the bore. If you're also shooting supersonic loads, where the bullet velocity exceeds the speed of sound, you also get a sonic boom (or crack) similar to the one a jet plane creates when it breaks the so-called Sound Barrier and actually travels faster than sound.
The most efficient sound suppression with firearms occurs with two elements: reducing the sound waves from the powder explosion, and removing the sonic boom with the ammunition.
The second can be relatively easy, done by using sub-sonic ammo that propels the bullet at a velocity slower than the speed of sound.
The first is more complex, and depends on a sealed gas system at the moment of firing for maximum effectiveness.
In an autopistol, you have no barrel/cylinder gap and only one way for the burning gases and sound waves to go- forward through the barrel. A good suppressor re-directs the gases and soundwaves through a series of internal baffles and/or a "packing" medium (either wet or dry) to reduce the velocity of the gases along with the sound produced at ignition.
You can reduce the DB output of a revolver with a suppressor to work on the gases exiting the muzzle, and by using sub-sonic ammo, but you don't have a sealed gas system in most revolvers and you'll get at least some loud noise along with escaping gases through the barrel/cylinder gap. How much exactly, I have no idea. Nor do I want to go to the expense of getting the federal tax stamp, buying a typical sample revolver, buying a suppressor, having the barrel modified to accept it, and scaring up a DB meter to test the idea with, fun though it might be.
The reason a Nagant revolver would work better than a "normal" revolver is because the design cams the cylinder forward at the moment of ignition to provide a seal where the barrel/cylinder gap would normally be. That could be quite effectively suppressed, if you had a good tight seal there.
If a revolver could be silenced anywhere near as effectively as a pistol, you'd see them in use by the serious operators. I'm not saying it's never been done, or that it may not be done somewhere today, it just doesn't work as effectively on a standard revolver as it does on a number of pistol designs.
Hope that helps.
Denis
Mike Irwin
Staff
"an old English rifle comes to mind, but I can't remember the info for it"
DeLisle (sp?) carbine.
Made from a modified Lee Enfield to fire .45 ACP ammo in suppressed mode. VERY quiet.
Only a very few were made.
DeLisle (sp?) carbine.
Made from a modified Lee Enfield to fire .45 ACP ammo in suppressed mode. VERY quiet.
Only a very few were made.