Jeff OTMG touched on the Reed Knights rifle and handgun I was going to mention.
VERY cool answer to the classic question of how to effectively suppress a revolver.
He made 2 types that I am aware of, one was the R2 which was a sniper rifle built on a 44magnum revolver frame and the other was a handgun built on something like a GP100 frame.
The sniper rifle had typical 44Magnum cylinders and used what looked like typical 44Mag shells. The trick was that it used a 30 cal. barrel and used special ammo where the 44Mag casings held a special telescoping sleeve that contained a 30cal bullet, upon firing the sleeve slid forward meeting with the barrel and effectively containing the combustion of the powder so that everything vented properly through the suppressor.
The 30cal bullet only traveled through 8-10 inches of barrel but when you saw the massive suppressor you got an eye full of what looked like 16 or so inches of bull barrel, obviously was a very large integrally suppressed barrel and possibly vented like that of an MP5SD. The thing was said to be incredibly silent, so much so that dry fire and live fire decible ratings were essentially the same at around 117db or something truely rediculous.
The handgun, forget the name of it but possibly an R3, was designed on a similar principle but used 38 or 357Mag brass and contained 22caliber projectiles. Noise ratings weren't as low for the smaller gun.
Ahhhhh, such an impressive little gun. Every now and then you'll see one in some obscure movie or TV show, when I first saw them on TV I almost laughed at the concept because everybody knows you can't suppress revolvers. Then I'm sittin in a Barns&Noble one day and there in this book on special firearms I see a lengthy feature on the Knights creation, WHOA neato stuff to learn about. I also gained a bit of respect for whoever the firearms tech/advisor was who kicked up a mock up of an R2 for the production.
And then Jim Keenan makes a good point. Suppressors don't neccesarily need to "silence" the shot, if they can attenuate the muzzle report so that it's not something readily identifiable as a gunshot then it stands a good chance of going un-noticed. If the pressurized gas entering the can of the suppressor manages to "sing" just right it can take on a sound similar to that of a soad can who's sides were squeezed and then allowed to pop back out into position and making a sort of "pop". The other thing about the sound signature is that it can be drown out much easier or with distance becomes increasily more difficult to determine where the shot came from based on muzzle report alone. Even on firearms still using supersonic ammunition suppressors can still be beneficial.
Just wish the things were easier to get or didn't have such a negative public perception.
VERY cool answer to the classic question of how to effectively suppress a revolver.
He made 2 types that I am aware of, one was the R2 which was a sniper rifle built on a 44magnum revolver frame and the other was a handgun built on something like a GP100 frame.
The sniper rifle had typical 44Magnum cylinders and used what looked like typical 44Mag shells. The trick was that it used a 30 cal. barrel and used special ammo where the 44Mag casings held a special telescoping sleeve that contained a 30cal bullet, upon firing the sleeve slid forward meeting with the barrel and effectively containing the combustion of the powder so that everything vented properly through the suppressor.
The 30cal bullet only traveled through 8-10 inches of barrel but when you saw the massive suppressor you got an eye full of what looked like 16 or so inches of bull barrel, obviously was a very large integrally suppressed barrel and possibly vented like that of an MP5SD. The thing was said to be incredibly silent, so much so that dry fire and live fire decible ratings were essentially the same at around 117db or something truely rediculous.
The handgun, forget the name of it but possibly an R3, was designed on a similar principle but used 38 or 357Mag brass and contained 22caliber projectiles. Noise ratings weren't as low for the smaller gun.
Ahhhhh, such an impressive little gun. Every now and then you'll see one in some obscure movie or TV show, when I first saw them on TV I almost laughed at the concept because everybody knows you can't suppress revolvers. Then I'm sittin in a Barns&Noble one day and there in this book on special firearms I see a lengthy feature on the Knights creation, WHOA neato stuff to learn about. I also gained a bit of respect for whoever the firearms tech/advisor was who kicked up a mock up of an R2 for the production.
And then Jim Keenan makes a good point. Suppressors don't neccesarily need to "silence" the shot, if they can attenuate the muzzle report so that it's not something readily identifiable as a gunshot then it stands a good chance of going un-noticed. If the pressurized gas entering the can of the suppressor manages to "sing" just right it can take on a sound similar to that of a soad can who's sides were squeezed and then allowed to pop back out into position and making a sort of "pop". The other thing about the sound signature is that it can be drown out much easier or with distance becomes increasily more difficult to determine where the shot came from based on muzzle report alone. Even on firearms still using supersonic ammunition suppressors can still be beneficial.
Just wish the things were easier to get or didn't have such a negative public perception.
