Talk:Silencer (firearms)/Archive 1

Inaccuracies
The Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics page has a section on gun silencers that suggests the line in this article "The overall effect of a good silencer can be dramatic, up to the point where the only audible noise is the mechanical parts of the gun moving." is woefully incorrect. But I'm no gun buff, so I don't want to unilaterally change the article. Anyone out there with real silencer experience who can vouch one way or the other? Bryan 06:19, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Problem with England and Finland's alleged tolerance on silencers
I find this slightly misleading:

> In some nations, such as England or Finland, they are practically unregulated and may be bought "over the counter" in retail stores.

as you cannot buy hand-guns under *any* circumstances in England and the UK. This negates the need for supressor regulation as suppressors are next to useless there. However, I'm not quite sure what one could put instead. Hmmm... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indiedan (talk • contribs) 22:06, 11 March 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but suppressors work just fine on subsonic rifles. .22 Long Rifle ammo is wildely available in reduced power, subsonic loadings, and Aguila now makes a subsonic loading using a 60 grain bullet (in a .22 Short case, to .22 Long Rifle OAL) that produces full power. A Ruger 10/22 or 77/22 with an integral suppressor that's .920" in outside diameter (the same as a heavy barrel) is quite popular, and (the 77/22 at least) still legal in the UK, if the paperwork doesn't kill you.--scot 20:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Suppressors are very useful on rifles, subsonic or not. Despite the supersonic crack, a good suppressor will bring the noise of a .223 rifle down to about that of a .22LR -- that is, quiet enough to shoot comfortably without hearing protection.--70.160.160.175 08:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference in the Geneva or Hauge conventions prohibiting the use of suppressed firearms. I'll search a bit more, then I'm yanking the bit about them being prohibited in warfare until someone comes up with a solid reference. scot 03:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

> "The MP5 and Mark 23 chamber 9 mm Luger and .45 ACP rounds, respectively. Both of these ammunition types have subsonic muzzle velocities" - Most 9mm rounds are NOT subsonic. Geoff B 20:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While handgun ammunition in 9mm often uses lighter bullets, with the 124 grain being the NATO choice, and 115 grain being popular for defensive use, most 9mm submachinegun ammo is loaded with a 147 grain bullet, which is subsonic in short SMG and pistol barrels. Incidentally, the 147 grain 9mm bullet gives a sectional density nearly idential to that of the 230 grain .45 ACP, and both run at similar velocities, around 900 fps.  scot 21:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

That's for law enforcement use, yep, but the poor armour penetration and less effective terminal ballistics means it's not the usual round for military use. Besides, the issue is that the article states that 9mm is subsonic, full stop. Geoff B 06:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, the article is fixed. I think the reason that the military uses 147 grain loads in the SMGs is that the 147 should give better penetration due to the higher sectional density; armor penetration isn't really an issue, typical handgun ammo doesn't really do the job--hence the 5.7x28mm and the 4.7mm H&K PDW, the .224 BOZ and the like, which are designed to concentrate the force of impact on the smallest possible area, then tumble after entry to make up for the small, non-expanding bullet. Of course, those calibers would be useless subsonic, as they have all their penetrating power in velocity, not mass...--scot 19:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusation of politcal smearing and unrelevance
I removed this sentence from the end of the article: "Chinese communists didn't think much of the POW-Status, anyhow." First of all, it seemed utterly unrelated to its context. Second, it sounds like a political smear. The person who contributed it also mentioned "Bonaparte Napoleon" and said "During the late 1950's the PLA has procured...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivacissamamente (talk • contribs) 14:10, 23 March 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like an POW or opinion to me. It's written pretty "conversationly"-like, but, hey, it's an edit by a human, allright. We tend to do that - gettin' personal. Anyhows; If it were a fact that Chinese 'Communists' (I say that, 'cuz I don't believe they were actually any genuine) or more like Socialists didn't ipso factos think of the POW-Status in truth, then it's a fact - and an article needs facts if it's relevant, so why not keep it there and/or add it back? This also goes for PLA's "procuration" in the 50's. Just let it go. No need to steam. And what's that with Bonaparte Napoleon?-OleMurder 18:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The corsican connection
- The story about Napoleon vs. silenced firearm is found in a german article by K. Maleyka in 1937, saying that the Girandoni reservoir air rifle saw action against Napoleon and that he issued orders for the execution of Austrian soldiers found carrying airguns.
 * While the story exists, and dates back that far, it is false. "Careful investigation has shown that the oft-told tale, originated in a German article by K. Maleyka in 1937, that the Girandoni air rifle saw action against Napoleon and that he issued orders for the execution of Austrian soldiers found carrying airguns is just not true. These rifles were used in the Wars of the First Coalition against revolutionary France from 1792 to 1797 and also were used in Turkey and Hungary." from http://www.beemans.net/400%20Years%20of%20Tradition.htm.  Also, the big advantage of the air rifle over the muskets was the lack of smoke, not the lack of sound.  Large bore precharged pneumatics are LOUD, easily as loud as a musket although not as loud as a modern high powered rifle. Check out barnespneumatic.com, he handmakes large bore precharged pneumatic rifles that are functionally similar to the Girandoni airguns. scot 16:41, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

- BTW the reservoir airgun used by Lewis & Clark expedition has been found and identified in April 2005! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.48.242 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself
Hi, I don't know which one of these is right but I know they can't both be. From the top: The near silent suppressed firearms seen in movies and television is pure fabrication; the most effective suppressors at most reduce sound to the level of a cough. Later on: Guns with the least 'leakage' are best, so a sealed breech (e.g. bolt action) is preferable and can be suppressed to the point that it makes only a "click" as the firing pin or hammer hits the primer. Which one is correct? Triddle 19:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Both, sort of. The sound of the hammer falling is much more audible than the sound of the gas escaping from an effective (i.e. large) suppressor on a smallbore rifle.  But in movies and TV, they never show effectively suppressed rifles, they show either pistols with tiny silencers, or moderately sized silencers on high powered rifles or SMGs.  I'll add a bit to both statements to make that more clear.  scot 19:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think I'm starting to understand but the article still seems misleading to me. I'll try my best to explain how I am interpreting it. The key is really in the first paragraph and specifically the sentence dealing with the movie suppressor. The last sentence left a thought that the gas expansion would still be heard (apparently the cough described here is the mechanical action of the weapon and not the gas expansion?). I believe this stems from the way a suppressor is inaccurately portrayed in the movies; you never heard the sound of the mechanical bits, always some sort of magical sharp "shooooop" noise. This is apparently what mislead me. Is this right? If so let me know and I'll try my hand at rewriting it too. Triddle 19:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There will always be at least some sound; a suppressor works on exactly the same principle as a muffler, and while you can attenuate most of the sound, there's still some low frequency (and thus much less noticable) sound of firing left. Almost all suppressors depicted in film are on semi-automatic handguns, revolvers, or high powered rifles; those on handguns are tiny--barely adequate for a .22 rimfire.  For anything bigger than a .22, you need a much bigger can; an effective suppressor for a .380 ACP is about the size of a 12 oz. soda can (usually longer and thinner, but same interior volume).  For a .45 ACP, it's closer to twice that.  For the rifle, it would remove all flash, but would still make a lot of noise (more than an unsuppressed .22 Long Rifle) and you'd still have the sonic boom of the supersonic bullet.  By all means try to make it clearer, and I'll make sure you don't introduce any factual errors.  scot 20:18, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One Hollywood film that accurately portrays the sound of a suppressed weapon is the Stallone film "Assassins." From 10 feet away, most of the perceived sound from an integrally suppressed .22 like the Ruger MKII comes from cycling the action, the sound is very similar to a nail gun. Even quieter if you have a mechanism that locks the action into single shot. I was surprised, however, to find that the quietest suppressed handgun I had ever heard was a WWII 9 mm Luger with a wet can attached to the barrel, using subsonic ball ammo. Quieter than a .22. So quiet it was eerie ... and yes, the action still cycled. The wet can was about 1 inch in diameter by 6 inches long, very high quality. You don't need a soda can sized wet OR dry can for a 9 mm or even a .45, several manufacturers like GEMTECH or AWC provide suppressors for the larger calibers that are still reasonably small. Exdmd 08:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Effectivnes
How much weapons loose on its effectivnes by puting a suppressor?


 * Depends on the suppressor design and the cartridge. Normally supersonic cartridges like the 9x19mm generally use a ported barrel to reduce the velocity to subsonic (generally 950 f/s or lower, to avoid supersonic flow around the bullet) and this can significantly reduce the bullet energy.  Some suppressor designs use rubber "wipes" that have holes smaller than the bullet diameter, which contract after the bullet passes to reduce the gas flow through the bullet's path.  These can significantly effect the accuracy of the round.  A suppressor that does not use a ported barrel or wipes will have no ballistic effect on the bullet.


 * I believe it will change your point of impact. But that just means you need to compensate for the change POI or rezero your sights 65.8.94.145 05:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The presence of a supressor changes the operating characteristics of semiautomatic and automatic firearms as well; the mass of the suppressor can interfere with recoil operated firearms, and the constriction at the muzzle will increase the residual pressure and increase the forces that operate blowback and gas operated firearms. Devices such as "recoil enhancers" are used to decouple the mass of the suppressor in short recoil designs, and an adjustment to the gas port may be neccessary in a gas operated firearm.  Blowbacks aren't really adjustable, except by altering the mass of the bolt, so careful cartridge selection is probably the best way to reduce the risk of high pressure in the chamber when the barrel opens.  An efficient suppressor will probably have enough internal volume to hold most of the powder gas, so residual pressures will probably not change much.  scot 16:00, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't the statement that subsonic ammo is less lethal be removed or clarified? Subsonic ammo can either refer to lower overall propellent and energy, or increased mass, lowering speed but maintaining the same energy, and lethality.Qoose 05:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bullet effectiveness isn't just an attribute of momentum (mass times velocity) alone, but also kinetic energy (one half of the product of mass times velocity squared). The actual effectiveness is rather highly dependent on what you're looking at, but for small arms, chances are pretty good you're going to need as much kinetic energy as you can get to meet the FBI standard requirements. 65.31.59.176 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

After dB ratings and comparable non-firearm results were added to the article, some people keep adding this quote: "However, because those are sources of continuous noise, the human ear perceives them as harsher and louder than a brief gunshot despite their similar meter readings."
 * 1) The guy who re-added it deleted "pneumatic drills" and "small firecrackers" which are both listed as example sounds of comparable volume that are burst sounds (like gunshots) rather than continuous sounds.  Not fitting an incorrect generalization does not warrant their removal.  Further, both are also listed in the cited sources in the same volume example lists.
 * 2) This statement is nonsense.  Physiological senses detect changes in stimuli much better than continuous stimuli.  That's why your eyes are constantly micro-jittering, braille requires movement across the letters, and you can rarely smell your own BO or bad breath.
 * 3) There's no citation for this "fact".  My sources aren't the NRA.  Both sources this "fact" is responding to are from uninterested parties which actually have incentives to go against the purpose for the cite.  One is a gun review company, which has an incentive for overstating effectiveness (suppressor manufacturers would pay for better reviews), yet the Wikipedia article is saying that suppressors aren't nearly as effective as Hollywood would have you believe.  The other is a public interest group re: hearing loss backed by hearing loss treatment companies, and their incentives are to understate dB levels so that they have more clients.  I'm not saying that either exercise these incentives, but both have interests in their data being used the exact opposite as to how I've used it here.
 * 4) I had to fix these stats once already because within a day of these being posted, an anonymous user edited the article to misrepresent the most effective suppressors' results as the most common results.  That's when this "continuous vs. burst" nonsense was initially posted.


 * I also removed the "suppressed guns sound like staple guns" statement because that's also nonsense. Staple guns aren't 130+ dB (or even close).  Further, there are no documented cases (outside of Hollywood) of the sonic boom, vacuum release, and gunpowder burn being quieter than the sound of the bolt/hammer colliding with the firing pin.  Even single action revolvers and bolt action rifles don't get that quiet when silenced.


 * Why don't you be a dear and explain to the class about silencing revolvers? Hmm?  I guess you were so busy tippy tappy typing that you forgot that there are pistols made with a slide lock because even with suppression the noise of the action cycling is LOUD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.91 (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It's really unprofessional that someone tagged this section as needing citations, I add uninterested citations that refute the uncited non-facts that were posted here, and someone has the gall to mischaracterize and even repress what those sources say.


 * I'm the "some guy" you are referring to and I take some offense to your labeling my edit as "possible anti-gun vandalism." If you had looked at my contribs to this article you'd see that I wrote practically half of it.  That's my YHM Neilsen device pictured at the bottom of the page.  I also wrote half the article on the National Firearms Act.  I am no anti-gun vandal.  I own multiple suppressors and other NFA items.
 * I looked at your profile. Assuming your credentials are as stated, you should know how many faux gun-rights organizations are out there parading in favor of certain political candidates who have very anti-gun stances.  (signing as DPR for ID sakes)
 * You are way out of line saying that it's "nonsense" that the human ear responds differently to impulse vs. continuous noise. You are right that human senses are good at detecting change, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.  The audio peak of a suppressed gunshot is over in 20 microseconds (see Silencer: History and Performance, Volume 1 by Alan C. Paulson, considered a world expert on suppressor testing), whereas the attack time of the human ear is, depending on which study you trust, 10-50 milliseconds (see http://www.hearingresearch.net/pdf/standear.pdf).  The human ear response time is roughly 1,000 times slower than the gunshot, and the hair cells of the inner ear haven't even begun to move by the time the gunshot is over.  The ear simply can't perceive the gunshot fast enough to process how loud it is.  Continuous noise sources like jet engines give the hair cells plenty of time to respond and are therefore processed much more efficiently by the mechanisms of audition, and perceived as louder and harsher.  This is easily tested with different sound meters; the correct meter used by Mr. Paulson and others is a B&K 2209 which has an attack time time of 20 microseconds.  Using a Larson-Davis meter with a slower response, Mr. Paulson gets dB readings that are consistently 5-10dB lower than the true value.  Your ear performs in the exact same way.
 * I understand this. You're saying that the human ear can't detect the full volume of a gunshot.  That doesn't mean continuous sounds are perceived louder than they meter;  it means burst sounds are perceived quieter than they meter, and by your own admission, this can be merely 5-10 dB.  If you want to clean up this paragraph to WP article standards and add it, by all means, do so.  I would hope that we're all more interested in knowledge than agendas or arguing with some stranger over the internet. (DPR)
 * These citations are not from the NRA. I trust you will retract that glib and insulting statement.
 * The original effectiveness section lacked citations and grossly overstated the effectiveness of suppressors (anti-gun view). I put in some citations and stats (pro-reality view).  Someone misrepresented the best suppression as common case (anti-gun view).  I fixed those misrepresentations (pro-reality view).  Now, I say pro-reality instead of pro-gun because of who these sources are.  The NRA will always be pro-gun which is not necessarily pro-reality (although it just so happens that the NRA has a pretty decent track record).  I didn't mean to offend.  I was just pointing out that these were neutral sources getting flak from uncited anti-gun misrepresentations. (DPR)
 * I altered your stats the day after you posted them because your sentence structure was atrocious. You wrote, for example, "In testing, the suppressors reduced the volume to 130 and 145 dB and best results at 117 dB."  The second half needs a verb, and the first half doesn't explain why the results are two different numbers or what they mean.  It is ironic for you to complain that this was altered by an anonymous person, since you yourself are making these edits anonymously (unless 69.143.160.184 happens to be your Wiki username).
 * No complaints here. The second half doesn't need a verb, but "at" should have been "to" (there's only 1 direct object and 1 indirect object, no second verb necessary).  I have no complaints about your phrasing.  If you reasonably think that people understand it better as amended, fine.  (DPR)
 * Your statement about the staple gun makes me believe you have never actually heard a suppressed firearm. About 50% of first time users have exclaimed to me, "Wow, it sounds like a staple gun!"  That sentence was not intended to convey that staple guns are 130+ dB.  It was intended to convey that a staple gun creates a metallic clacking noise which is similar in character, not volume, to a suppressed pistol.  You call things "nonsense" waaay too often.
 * I've fired at least "a few" suppressed firearms -- mp5, ar15, sig sauer 9mm, and a ruger mark 2 (.22LR) with integrated suppressor body. If you want to say similar in character but not volume, fine, but without the distinction, it really is lacking in sense (the root of nonsense) to say that a 130+ dB suppressed gunshot sounds like a staple gun. (DPR)
 * What a surprise, you're also wrong about there being "no documented cases of the sonic boom, vacuum release, and gunpowder burn being quieter than the sound of the bolt/hammer colliding with the firing pin." Mr. Paulson's book (title mentioned above) describes one integrally-suppressed .22LR rifle doing just that, and spends some time marveling about it.  I agree that it is rare, but your suggestion that it "never" happens tells me you just aren't very widely-read on this topic. ConquerorPBN (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "never", but even by both your accounts and Paulson's authority, it's nearly unique. I'm curious for more details about Paulson's experience.  Did he use a wet suppressor, subsonic (and/or rounded/HP, extra low grain) rounds, double or single action, and what was the volume (as in space) of the suppressor?  What was the body/stock of the rifle made of?  What were the atmospheric/weather conditions for his tests?  We both know that the tiny (and virtually non-lethal) caliber also helps.  In any case, adding up all the best conditions possible is certainly unrealistic for anyone using a firearm in a combat scenario, and that's far from what's presented in the movies (9mm to .45 handguns making a little "phiew" sound for multiple clips, no wet suppressor, no wipes, etc). If you have the facts on his findings, add them, but remember to present them as he did -- a rare aggregation of numerous factors.  (DPR)

New to this, so if I don't obey the Wikipedia protocol, forgive me. The definitions of firearm actions are very inaccurate in this section: For instance, you described "single action" as only producing the sound of a hammer hitting the firing pin, while double action cycles the next round. In fact, single and double action refer only to trigger mechanisms, and have nothing to do with cycle action. A double action pistol cocks the hammer and drops it with each pull of the trigger- this is how most modern revolvers work, and many automatics (including the Glock, though that is a striker instead of a hammer, the same concept applies). Single action firearms will only fire when the hammer is already cocked, as the trigger only drops the hammer. This is most typical of old revolvers (which had to be manually cocked before each shot) and the 1911 automatic design, which is carried with the hammer back and resets the hammer whenever it cycles. The vast majority of modern firearms are a combination which may be fired double action but will cock the hammer when they cycle, resulting in single action. So, both single and double action automatics eject the old cartridge and cycle a new round into the chamber with each shot, and yes, it's very loud, even with a suppressor. And correct, it is not as loud as the report of even a suppressed weapon. You also stated that dry firing will damage the firing pin. This is a minor quibble, but that's not true--modern firearms will not be damaged at all by dry firing. Next point- you said "the sound of bolt or hammer hitting the firing pin;" the bolt is a part on a rifle, which typically contains a striker. No bolt hits a firing pin in any firearm. Only a hammer hits, or a striker acts as both "hammer" (by releasing tension) and firing pin by striking the primer of a round. There is no bolt on a magazine fed handgun, only rifles; automatic handguns have a part called a "slide" which contains the barrel, hammer or striker, firing pin, chamber, and other upper parts of the weapon, and which cycles to eject an old cartridge and load another. Most modern automatic handguns have hammers, so stating "the sound of the bolt (magazine fed) or hammer (revolver)..." is inaccurate. Finally, on a revolver a new round is cycled as the trigger is pulled and before the hammer drops, and it is usually very quiet (quieter than the impact of the hammer on the firing pin), unlike the very fast and violent cycling of an automatic (which is MUCH louder than the hammer). Since it is before the shot and quiet, it is not of great concern for a suppressed firearm. I would do these edits myself, but never having done so I would rather that someone who knows the style and is much more familiar with modern firearm actions or someone who read up on revolvers/automatics and single action/double action edited the section to be accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.224.216 (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Suppressors in the UK
See this.

While firearms are hard to get (And handguns impossible, to the extent the British Olympic pistol team trains in France) if you have one of the lesser regulated firearms (shotgun or an air rifle (many of which are reguarded as firearms under UK law), getting a suppressor for it is easy. scot 14:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Merge with flash suppressor
I tagged both articles mergewith. As far as I can tell, flash suppressors do not necessarily do anything for sound, and suppressors (silencers) usually reduce muzzle flash. --Christopherlin 16:41, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be merged. Silencers and flash suppressors have different purposes, different designs, and different effects.  The only point of similarity is that both of them reduce muzzle flash. --Carnildo 19:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the merger--while sound suppressors also eliminate flash, that's entirely a side effect. The purpose of a flash suppressor is to reduce, from the shooter's point of view, the amount of muzzle flash; this is done by allowing the escaping gas to mix with air, completing the combustion and reducing the temperature to reduce the size of the "fireball".  Flash suppressors not only fail to reduce the sound, but actually increase the sound of firing to observers to teh side, by spreading the escaping gasses to the sides and increasing the audible sound of firing to the sides of the shooter (muzzle brakes are worse--they direct the gasses backwards, greatly increasing the sound levels the shooter experiences).  Modern flash suppressors are very efficiently designed to reduce the flash to tolerable levels in a very light and compact package, using carefully designed ports to direct the escaping gasses to provide optimum mixing with the air.  A cross-link between the articles is probalby a good idea, however, since they are related in that both attempt to reduce the signature of a firearm.  scot 19:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I also disagree. See my comment at Talk:Flash suppressor.--Tronno 21:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Supressor vs Silencer
We just had a page revert,; someone at 67.189.43.119 added "(and incorrectly)" between "supressors, also commonly" and "known as silencers" in the intro sentence, and then User:Kintetsubuffalo reverted.

In my opinion, based on the professional literature and discussions with supressor users and manufacturers, is that unknown editor at 67.189.43.119 is correct. See for example the article section Supressor which I added on March 11 2006.

I am going to revert back to unknown-at-67.189.43.119's last edit with "(and incorrectly)" inserted, as I believe it to be an accurate contribution per above. Georgewilliamherbert 00:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW: While the name overstates the functional capability of the device, 'Silencer' was the term coined by the device's inventor Hiram Percy Maxim. --D.E. Watters 23:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * True (I think, I have heard so but don't recall a reference), but modern technical usage has evolved away from his terminology. If you can provide a reference and want to add a note to the effect that that's what he called them, that would be fine by me.  Georgewilliamherbert 23:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The first reference in H.P. Maxim's patents of the term 'silencer' is on Page 3 Line 88 of US Patent #958,934. He previously used the term 'silencing device' in that patent and the earlier #916,885 patent.  Many of his later 'silencer' patents are assigned to the Maxim Silencer Company, previously the Maxim Silent Firearms Company. --D.E. Watters 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Was "silencer" a trademark? That might explain the use of "suppressor", and also the American/British split on "muffler" vs. "silencer".  scot 16:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly prefer the term "silencer" over "suppressor" and I think I can back up my reasons for this. Firstly, Hiram Maxim called his invention a silencer. Secondly, the US Government (in the National Firearms Act) refers to this device as a "firearm silencer". Thirdly, the common usage among ordinary people -- not firearms specialists -- is strongly in favor of "silencer". Fourthly, the term "suppressor" without qualification is vague, since it could easily refer to a flash suppressor, or even possibly a recoil suppressor (i.e. muzzle brake). Tony Belding 19:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reverted the change. Professional usage of the terms is extremely clearly in favor of supressor.  We are trying to inform and clarify people's understanding, not perpetuate the "silencer" myth.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually would like to see the entire page renamed "Silencer (Firearm)" The original inventor used the term, the NFA of 1934 uses the term "muffler or silencer," the ATF Form 4 uses the term silencer, the NRA's firearm Glossary uses "Silencer", and the SAAMI Glossary has the term "Silencer." It seems Silencer IS the common term with it sometimes being called a "Supressor" or a "Sound Supressor." Reflux 21:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Google searches, April 10 2010: (all in quotes):

"gun silencer" - 42,600 "gun suppressor" - 5,310

"handgun silencer" - 38,600 "handgun suppressor" - 3,860

"firearm silencer" - 13,100 "firearm suppressor" - 7,950

"rifle silencer" - 102,000 "rifle suppressor" - 26,000

To me that strongly suggests that 'Silencer' is the more commmon term, Which is not to say that 'Suppressor' may not be the more correct term (after all, the device does not make the firearm 'silent'). My vote would be for 'Silencer', as the main purpose of the title is to help users find the article (I've NEVER heard it called a suppressor, to the best of my memory). If Professional usage of the terms is in favor of suppressor, this can be explained in the article.Happypoems (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Photo
I can't figure out where an appropriate place for this photo would be in this article, but if you guys would like it:

I have a couple more photos from that range session if you'd like alternatives. --UNHchabo 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hiram Maxim
The picture of the silencer for Hiram Maxim's patentg was an earlier design that made gases swirl around, but was actually later rejected by him for being too complex. AllStarZ 23:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Suppressors in video games
I really don't see the point in this list. I'm sure there are tons more video games with suppressors than what are in the list. Perhaps there should be a category on it but I don't see any point in listing them in this article. --Ortzinator 21:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree it is cruft and should be moved (or removed). --D.E. Watters 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Also agreed. It doesn't really add anything to the article that couldn't be added by simply saying "Suppressors are often featured/used in video games."  Almost any video games that feature firearms, also feature suppressors.  Cloaked Dagger 05:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I think that was plenty of time for anyone to object. I went ahead and removed it. --Ortzinator 00:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work, I was about to do the same, but it looks like you beat me too it Cloaked Dagger 04:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good removal. I agree. Reflux 21:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Suppressors in fiction
I'm looking at removing this section for the same reason as the other, though I am unsure this time. So I'd like some opinions. --Ortzinator 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Improvised
"It is widely believed that suppressors can be improvised with any baffling material. Such attempts are only marginally useful, have a very short lifespan even if effective, and are often dangerous to the user.

...

The overwhelming majority of improvised suppressors popularized by movies and television (plastic bottles stuffed with insulation, potatoes, pillows, etc) do nothing to dampen a gun blast."

This is entirely untrue. According to Modern Firearm Silencers and Sporting And Tactical Silencers, Vol. 1 (Silencer History And Performance) (Paperback), amongst other resources. There are also several commonly found books on this subject, though I do not know if they are legitimate.

What is true is that many such suppressors do, usually, have a short lifespan.

Plastic bottles do not need to be stuffed with insulation. The escaping gases expand within them, and the outside material acts as a wipe. Small amounts of liquid within them may act as wet function. The disadvanges here are the size and temporary usage. (One popular example of this was a reverse screw on that fit on threaded barrels for these bottles, however this was banned -- one of the above sources cites this.)

One of the above sources also shows multiple forms of improvised suppressors. The design is simple enough that this is trivial to do. One example which was stated as being 'particuliarly and surprisingly effective' was a drug dealer's pvc model that used cardboard cut side by side for the baffling.

Never heard of potatoes being used for a suppressor. That would not work, theoretically. A two liter bottle was used in at least one movie (some Jim Belushi movie). I believe there was a milk carton full of milk used in another. Theoretically, that should dampen the sound. A pillow probably would work (ala, Godfather), but never heard of that tested.

-

I have personally tested the "2 liter bottle" suppression, with no "insulation", using a .22LR Semi-Automatic rifle, firing subsonic rounds. Mounted only with duct tape, I was able to go through an entire clip, and the only noise heard was the click of the action reloading. I did notice, however, that the bullets were seeming to be going in semi-random directions (either that or it was pieces of the bottle flying off) So, I decided that it was probably not a good idea to keep playing around with that, and stopped. It DID completely silence the muzzle blast however, so, the quoted information above is inaccurate.

Thanks for confessing to a federal crime on Wikipedia. And of course when you said "clip" you meant to say "magazine". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.176.91 (talk) 07:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

a .22 is a small caliber not capable of making a loud noise as far as i know  but  the potato silencer i have heard of  in a film (south central) where he puts the potato on the barrel of the revolver and then shoots the "kansas city smack man" (pretty much a drug dealer)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.56.200 (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal Status
Under "Legal Status, the article says:

In the United States, it is legal in most states for an individual to possess and use a suppressor

However, under Improvised, we see

Even suppressors intended for paintball markers, while providing no functionality for firearms, are illegal in the United States.

Can someone confirm one way or the other, and resolve the contradiction?

Septegram 14:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Even suppressors intended for paintball markers, while providing no functionality for firearms, are illegal in the United States." should read "Even suppressors intended for paintball markers, while providing no functionality for firearms, are highly restricted or illegal in the United States." scot 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Meeooowww!!!

 * "... the player can use a live Cat as a silencer on their weapon. None of these methods are effective in real life."

Can we have a reference to the government tests which demonstrated the uselessness of feline suppressors? — 84.65.71.50 22:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A Google search yielded this. 64.90.198.6 22:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Napoleon
This article specifically talks about the history of suppressors, not silent weapons. Furthermore, there is confusion about the definition of "silent", as anything ranging from a throwing weapon like a slingshot or a knife is "silent". Removing section on Napoleon's encounters with air rifles, re-add at your own pleasure if you can find a better way to phrase it. 74.112.49.141 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Metallic?
The article states that suppressors are metallic, but this isn't necessarily true. Some, for example, are polymer. In fact, an awful lot of them are made of non-metallic polymers.MVMosin 02:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC) I also would like to note that the particular sentence I am referring to says that they are "generally" metallic and cylindrical. While I don't think the cylindrical thing will be argued at all, (unless we get in to geometric pedantry) this is a particularly bad way of making a statement for an enclopedia article without a specific source, not only to verify the statement itself, but to define for the reader what exactly "generally" is.MVMosin 02:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not possible. It is possible to cite individual examples, such as the all polymer suppressors made for .22 LR guns, and while I know of no suppressors that are not housed in cylindrical housings, there is no reason they have to be--mufflers for internal combustion engines are often elliptical in cross-section, and there's no reason that wouldn't work for a firearm suppressor.  However, unless you have a source for for statistical information on all suppressors, with information on composition or shape, then you can't provide anything more specific than statements like "most" or "many".  Any other statement would be untrue or unverifiable.  scot 13:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a rectangular suppressor: http://www.streetpro.com/usp/hksocom.html  Still looking for a maker of all polymer ones.  scot 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Carbon fiber models for airguns: http://www.chambersgunmakers.co.uk/Silencers.htm scot 14:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, one of the primary sources (the Paulson book "Silencer History and Performance: Vol 1") lists all-plastic Voere suppressors for .22, and plastic-internals, metal-can models as well. Consider it sourced.  The airgun models above don't count, they would likely fail if used for real firearms.  The rectangular SOCOM model is real (was one of the Offensive Handgun Project designs that lead to the HK Mark 23 and the winning cylindrical Knight's suppressor).
 * While the airgun moderators aren't intended for firearm use, they probably would survive a rimfire rifle; some playing with my internal ballistics software shows over 200 psi muzzle pressure from a CO2 pistol (roughly a Crosman 1008), and a bit over 325 psi for an 18" .22 Long Rifle and subsonic ammo. And of course the BATFE would probably consider that airgun moderator a "firearm silencer" even if it disintegrated upon firing, and the Brits consider a lot of airguns to be firearms, so you're in a gray area anyway...  scot 20:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more than just pressure; it's temperature and gas velocity as well. You'd have to check what the composite filler was for those CF components and see what its melting temp and erosion properties are.  The Voere suppressors, for example, last ok on a .22 rifle but not as long on a .22 pistol.  Georgewilliamherbert 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that "generally" is still the right wording. There are a very few counterexamples, but 99.9% plus of all suppressor models, and all suppressors sold, are metallic and cylindrical.  Georgewilliamherbert 19:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe "generally" is the right wording, but that is subjective to the meaning of generally. Generally could mean 50%, or 60%, 80% or as you said, 99.9%. Whether generally is right or not isn't the issue, but generally is a border-line weasel word and should either be defined or changed.MVMosin 00:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything we can say can be interpreted as weasel-wording. There are known counterexamples to both "metallic" and "cylindrical", but they're in the tiny minority.  We don't want to say "only" or "always", as there are known documented counterexamples.  "Nearly all are..." might be better wording.  I like "generally", but I don't think it's the only right way.  Everyone is invited to offer their alternative suggestions 8-)  Georgewilliamherbert 03:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While "generally" or "mostly" are often used as weasel words, that does not mean that any use of them automatically counts as such. You have to look at function; by definition weasel words are intentionally misleading, which the statement in question is definately not.  We know that there are non-cylindrical and non-metallic suppressors, but there is NO authoritative source to tell us what ratio they exist in, so we cannot say "All suppressors are..." or "X% of suppressors are...", all we can do is say "Most suppressors..." or "Suppressors generally..." and cite examples of the exceptions.  scot 14:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Photograph
Hopefully no one minds but I changed the first photograph. Among other things it showed a bullet hole in the shooting bench ... ugh ... that's no good. --Cortland 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Truly Silent Silencer
So guns can't be silenced by sticking a metal (or polymer) tube on the end. Well, how would you really silence one? Start with a .22, add a beefy supressor and sub-sonic ammo. Now, theoretically, you've removed the report completely (well, that's the idea), but we've still got the gun cycling. How can we shut that up? Metal on metal (ie the racking of the slide) is kind of loud, so we'd need to use a different material, possibally covering the metal (plastic or foam or something). I think that the firing pin striking the bullet is pretty much stuck making noise though. Unless we made a new way to discharge the bullet aside from firing pin (which would be theoreticly possible), there's no way to really stop that, eh? I want to hear your ideas. KungfuJoe1110 09:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a forum to come up with "ideas" about suppressing weapons or anything else for that matter. This is talk page and is to be used for discussion related to the content and editing of the article itself.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 18:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All appologies, I took "discussion" literally. I'll discontinue.KungfuJoe1110 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Recoil Reduction
To begin with, the section on the reduction of recoil seems to start with some false assumptions, followed by generous rounding. Using the listed numbers of 1.6g of gas and a 4.0g bullet, and weighting the gas to account for double the velocity of the bullet, the gas accounts for 44% of momentum, which was rounded to 50% in the article. This would more accurately be rounded down to 40% and listed as "eliminates just over 40% of recoil". But I believe the main issue here is that this assumes that all of the gas is both trapped and completely stopped within the confines of the suppressor, which is not true. Gas present in the main bore of a suppressor is still at a high enough pressure to impart an additional 30-50 fps on average to a bullet (vs. 200 to 300 fps imparted by an equal length of barrel). Once the gas and bullet have exited the barrel, the only effects on the momentum of the gun moving backwards are the drag of the gas expanding past the baffles and the sustained pressure in the suppressor exiting forwards. Realistically, whatever slight forces might be applied to the recoil counteract each other, giving a zero net effect on the recoil. Silmenuquerna 19:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're making a mistake here. The momentum change is that the gas is slowed from 1-2x the bullet velocity down to significantly lower exit velocities by the suppressor system.  It's not a zero net effect on the recoil; it's significant.  It's roughly as effective as the sideways gas diverting muzzle brake systems, which turn most of the gas rather than decellerate it, but have similar overall effects.  Georgewilliamherbert 03:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, you may be right.. let me check some math. Given a 20in barrel on an M16, which I assume the article's math is based on, muzzle velocity is 3100 fps. With a 5in suppressor added, 3150. Given that 1 in of barrel length would give the same boost to velocity, that essentially means that 80% of the gas in the suppressor is escaping at a lower speed than the bullet. Except, the area of the bore of a suppressor is just over double that of a bullet, thus allowing half of that 80% to escape around the bullet. So that leaves 40% traveling effectively at full speed, 20% traveling approximately 3200 fps, and 40% at approximately 1600. So, altogether, recoil remains 83.41% of unsuppressed. So, I guess you're right to a degree. It's just over a 15% reduction in recoil, which is still a far cry from the 50% quoted by the article. I am editing the article now, if you find math to back up the 50%, feel free to change it back. Silmenuquerna 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not how it's working...
 * It's not gases escaping around the bullet and blocked in. Effectively, most of the gas is trapped in the suppressor, deflected, expands and mixes with the ambient air in the suppressor.  It then exits the suppressor at lower velocity, based on the propellant mass and suppressor volume and design.
 * Some small quantity does escape out the front at high speed, without being deflected. That's minimized with modern suppressors and particularly with longer modern suppressors.  Georgewilliamherbert 18:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for an additional USEFUL picture
Just read the article and found no recent cross cuts of a modern suppressor, I think a photo like that would be a very useful supplement to the article.


 * Agree. I can run a diagram up sometime.  I don't have a Public Domain or GFDL photo of a cutaway, but we can turn copyrighted photos into diagrams perfectly legally...  Georgewilliamherbert 18:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are some photos and drawings to use: http://www.reflexsuppressors.co.uk/  http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/btxgraaf.html http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/m62graaf.html http://www.rifleman.org.uk/The_DeLisle_carbine.htm  scot 19:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those duplicate those in Poulsen's book, which also has more varieties in it. Georgewilliamherbert 19:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Added drawings
I created and added three cross-section drawings of three widely differing suppressor types, all adapted from Poulsen's Vol 1. Input welcome. Georgewilliamherbert 08:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent cross-sections! GMan552 11:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Thanks a bunch.--  Oni Ookami Alfador Talk 14:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

45ACP... good ammo choice?
I think the comment about 45ACP being a good ammo choice is a bit disingenuous as 45ACP is pretty hard to suppress due to its large diameter, which allows the gases to escape very quickly. Obviously it is subsonic, which helps with the ballistic crack, but I'd like to see a reference to the fact that it is easily suppressed, and in fact quieter than a 9mm with supersonic ammo. (Obviously a 9mm with subsonic ammo will be quieter still, though less powerful). Thanks, Tmaull 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the internal ballistics of the .45 ACP make it easier to suppress. Both the 9mm and .45 ACP use similar amounts of powder (Accurate powders, 5.3 gr. of #5 for 147 gr. 9mm, 5.4 gr. of #2 for 230 gr. .45 ACP), and thus will have similar amounts of gas to deal with.  The .45 ACP works at a much lower peak pressure, 21kpsi vs. 35kpsi for the 9mm, thus the .45 ACP suppressor has much lower pressure gas at the muzzle than a 9mm suppressor.  The DeLisle carbine is a good example if a nearly ground-up purpose built suppressed firearm, and it used the .45 ACP, even though the British sidearms used 9mm.
 * As for supersonic vs. subsonic, this is from Gem-Tech:
 * When using an integral suppressor, the barrel is modified for velocity control, usually for marginally supersonic ammunition (such as with submachine guns and rimfire weapons). With today's technology and the availability of reliable commercial subsonic ammunition in both 9mm and .22 rimfire, the efficiency of a muzzle suppressor is comparable to that of an integral suppressor. The point of the integral suppressor is to bleed gas to slow the otherwise supersonic bullet down to subsonic speeds; this was needed with SMGs designed to fire supersonic ammo, that would fail to function with reduced power subsonic ammo.
 * Also see this Finnish source:
 * Actually it was less than 10 m/s, but if a bullet emerges the muzzle with a velocity 345 m/s and next one at velocity 336 meters per second in ambient temperature +15 degrees Celsius/ Centigrade, is difference of audible signature easily noted, even without presence of suppressor/silencer, but especially when a "sound moderator device" is mounted.  So same gun, same ammo, and nearly the same velocity, and supersonic airflow makes all the difference.
 * and this NZ source:
 *  Ambient background was about 50-53 dB and un-silenced Elley subsonic recorded 104.5 dB. Using the same Eley ammo in the fully suppressed 10/22 rifle by PES gave a diminutive reading of 87.3 dB. and The High Velocity tests showed un-silenced Stingers gave a reading of 119.0dB and fully silenced 105.5 dB, a very good 13.5 dB reduction with High Velocity ammo nearly bring it down to subsonic level un-silenced, now that is very good. This just serves to quantify the qualitative results given above--suppressed rifle and supersonic ammunition is merely as quiet as the unsuppressed rifle with subsonic ammunition.
 * That and the whole concept of the .300 Whisper and relatives is to propel a heavy, aerodynamically efficient bullet at subsonic velocities for effective suppression. Great for rifles, bad for SMGs and handguns which don't have the bolt throw to handle the rifle length cartridge.  For those, the .45 ACP is still the top choice--which is why the USSOCOM chose it for the  offensive handgun project.  scot 20:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The greater diameter of .45 ACP when compared to 9x19mm Parabellum ought to aid in the suppression of firearms chambered for it, all else being equal. Since the noise generated by the muzzle blast is caused by depressurization (or rapid expansion) of powder gases, I would assume that increased chamber pressures would lead to increased expansion of such gases upon projectile exit from the barrel. Since .45ACP operates at lower chamber pressures (140 MPa max) than 9mm (235 MPa max), it would be easier to suppress, since less expansion of the gases needs to be done to bring the report down to desired levels, and a less efficient (smaller, generally) suppressor can be employed. You also need to consider that the proectile, as it passes through the suppressor, traps the following powder gases in each expansion chamber, especially in wipe-design suppressors; barrel diameter ought to have no effect on the expanding gases.Bebopspike13 (talk) 10:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Bebopspike13 - unfortunately, when you say things like "I would assume..." you are doing just that. It is painfully obvious that you do not have actual experience with firearm suppressors.  Nor, I would bet, does Fluzwup, the user above you.  .45ACP is actually among the hardest pistol cartridges to effectively suppress.  The large bore required means that the baffles have a very hard time containing the hot gases, and they tend to rush out faster through the bore, meaning the suppressor is significantly less efficient.  This is evident when you look at the real .45ACP suppressors available.  While virtually every commercial 9mm pistol silencer made is hearing-safe (by OSHA's 140dB standard, with most metering under 130dB), only one available .45ACP silencer is hearing safe - and only marginally so (the Knight's Armament USP-T, at 138dB dry).  Though .45ACP is inherently subsonic in its 230gr form, so is 147gr 9mm Parabellum, which is readily available nationwide, so .45ACP's advantage in that respect is mostly theoretical.  Being subsonic is important to overall suppression, but it is not the end-all be-all.  EVERY commercially-available .45ACP silencer must be shot wet (with water/grease/gel) to be even close to "quiet."  The AAC Evolution .45, a very popular .45 silencer choice, meters at around 145dB - nearly as loud as an unsilenced .22 rifle.  You also comment that .45 can use a smaller, less efficient silencer.  Again, you are incorrect.  Most commercial .45 cans are larger than their 9mm counterparts - for example, the AAC Evolution 9mm is 1.25" OD by 7.25" long and meters 125dB dry, whereas its big brother, the Evolution .45, is 1.375" OD by 8.0" long and meters 145dB dry.  The simple fact of the matter is that .45 is NOT an inherently easy cartridge to suppress.  Its only good side is its subsonic nature, but that is vastly outweighed by the large bore size required, which destroys the suppression efficiency of the baffle stack.  Trust me on this one, I personally own multiple silencers and have used most major brands of pistol and rifle silencers. ConquerorPBN (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Bottle silencers
I respect this article, but we have forgotten one of the more...conventional types of silencers. Soda bottles of just about any size over twenty ounces can be used as silencers but the side effect is only one time use(maybe two if your lucky) and the escaping gas could hurt you if it goes down the bottle and receeds back to your gun and over onto your hand. It doesnt COMPLETELY get rid of the noise but dully muffles it, its not as effective as other more advanced types of silencers(id hope to god not) but it can still be used as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.80.6 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah like the shotgun Chigurh uses in No Country for Old Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.229.173.19 (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

silencers dont truely silence?
Ive fired an MP5SD with an integral scilenceer all the oly noise it makes is when it ejects the case, in theory the scilencer does scilence because the bullet coming out the end of the gun does not make a sound, which is the point of the scilencer isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.124.191 (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, technically it's not "silent", as long as you have vibrations and gas coming out of the end, there's some noise coming out, even if you can't hear it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.228.46 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's far from actually silent. Just because it sounds very quiet to the shooter doesn't really mean anything.  An MP5SD meters at well over 120dB which is as loud as a rock concert - but the burst of noise is much shorter, so it sounds subjectively quieter. ConquerorPBN (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

welrods are almost entirely silent to the human ear.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.15.73 (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Movie Silencers
I'm probably the only person in this world who absolutely -cannot- stand the sound the movie versions make. It drives me nuts and stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.149.132 (talk) 23:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

unneccessary (sp?) content
The sound of the firearm's action or hammer hitting the firing pin can be measured by dry firing the firearm, although repeated dry firing may eventually damage the pin. Aside the report, bolt action firearms only make the sound of the hammer colliding with the pin (or striker releasing from the sear, as the case may be), whereas auto-loading firearms also load the next cartridge into the weapon's chamber, and this process creates additional noise. In other words, a semi-automatic firearm will almost always be louder than a bolt-action firearm of the same cartridge size, for the following reasons:


 * the next round from the magazine being loaded into the firing chamber,
 * the bolt locking back as the magazine is emptied

i believe all that doesn't belong in the article. it's an interesting discussion, but there's nothing about suppressors. perhaps a new/sub section about "other noise from firearm operation" would be a more appropriate location? ---Jehan60188 (talk) 14:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

.22LR in Effectiveness Section
We're talking probability of instant kill, and .22LR is most likely going to just cause bleedout (slow death, not instant) -- not always, but probably. Nothing in the paragraph is incorrect. .22LR generally does not have reliable lethality on a 180lb target at any range. That's why game hunters use .270/.308/30-06/30-30, and LEOs use .45/.38/.223/.308. The only thing worse than missing a target is hitting the target only for it to run off and die a slow and miserably painful death from bleedout or infection, or it living another 17 minutes to continue to empty clips in your direction. Sure you can 1s1k rabbits, foxes, and maybe small coyotes with a .22LR, but no one is storming a compound with one. Even worse, .22LR keyholes at 200+ yards in all but the best conditions. But don't take my word on the insufficiency of .22 caliber... take the [FBI]'s:
 * a bullet through the central nervous system with any caliber of ammunition is likely to be immediately incapacitating.(5) Even a .22 rimfire penetrating the brain will cause immediate incapacitation in most cases. Obviously, this does not mean the law enforcement agency should issue .22 rimfires and train for head shots as the primary target. The realities of shooting incidents prohibit such a solution.  ...  With the exceptions of hits to the brain or upper spinal cord, the concept of reliable and reproducible immediate incapacitation of the human target by gunshot wounds to the torso is a myth.(27) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.107.200 (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a reliable source for the specific comments you put in the article. If you do not, our policy on original research and opinions says we need to remove it.
 * I am not disagreeing with the statement. However, there is a difference between an encyclopedia article and a user guide or opinion article in a gun magazine.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Preventing Flashes
Do suppressors prevent firing flashes? That should be mentioned in the article too since it's a vital point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.131.29 (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Alternative silencing methods
The Soviet Union (and later Russia) developed a small series of covert firearms that trapped the propelling gases inside the cartridge casing, eliminating a loud report without the need for a bulky suppressor. I believe that these weapons should be mentioned at least briefly under an Alternatives section or such, as they achieve the main goals of a suppressor though a different method. The OTs-38 Stechkin silent revolver listed in the See Also section is actually one of these very weapons. Gripen-delta (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Sources of firearm noise" contradiction
Hey folks! I just noticed this- five sources of noise are listed as "Action, Blast, Sonic Signature, Impact, Operator", and then the bullet-pointed list has Action, Muzzle, Sonic signature, Action, and Impact. It sounds like there are a few wires crossed in that- the first has "operator" listed (person grunting or yelling as they shoot? Dunno), and the second list has five items, but duplicates "action" (with the second instance being the cycling of the action to load a new round). Does it make sense to take out the "operator" item? Nursebootsy (talk) 02:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)Nursebootsy, 1-18-10

Method of attachment
In popular culture (especially movies and books), screw-on silencers are quite common, but I have heard that in reality they are very rare, with other mechanisms or even permanent attachment being far more common. Could somebody more familiar with them add find some source and add information about this to the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.161.93 (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply, but almost all the models I have seen or seen documentation or photos on are screw-on.
 * There are different threading methods in use, some replace a muzzle brake or screw onto a normal barrel with a threaded end, and some screw onto a special flash suppressor with threads on the outside.
 * Relatively few use other attachment mechanisms, though some of the current US military ones do.
 * Threads are easy and cheap...
 * Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I came to this article hoping to learn about method of attachment --- something which has been a total mystery to me every since I first wondered about it. There is no substantial information on this in the article and essentially none on this Talk page. Can somebody please provide an explanation? --- Dagme (talk) 06:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Felt Recoil Reduction
User:Georgewilliamherbert regarding change 419067725 in Suppressor: If Paulson lists 15% that must be in reference to pistol calibers with relatively heavy bullets (which are popularly used for suppressed pistols and subguns since they're subsonic). However there is no question that with a rifle caliber the "rocket-effect" recoil from propellant leaving the muzzle constitutes 30-50% of the recoil impulse. This is basic physics -- propellant mass times velocity squared = recoil energy (and note that propellant muzzle velocity is typically at least twice the muzzle velocity of the projectile). Any decent suppressor converts the vast majority of this propellant kinetic energy into heat. So for rifles, where recoil is a significant factor, the actual recoil impulse is reduced by around 40%, +/- depending on the ratio of propellant to bullet mass. Anyone who has shot a high-powered rifle with and without a suppressor can confirm felt recoil is reduced by about half with the can attached. Dbooksta (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Dbooksta - I fully understand the mechanism, gas aero/hydrodynamics, system momentum analysis, etc. and am familiar with user side effects. There are two questions - One, is a "it feels like half" as a subjective observation useful numerically (unfortunately, not usually, people judge badly much of the time), and Two, can we find a reliable source citation for the higher number.
 * Anyone with a recoil force measuring gun firing fixture could produce reliable numbers in a jiffy, but I can't find good documentation of people publishing those numbers. I do not have the stand nor a suppressor to test with at the moment (not currently being a FFL Class 3 manufacturer and living in California...).
 * If you know of articles, books, research papers or reports, anything that has numbers that's been published that we can cite, then please provide the reference.
 * If we get a reference with a better number for rifles, we can put that info right on in.
 * Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Both of you may enjoy this article by Mark White. He states 20-30% recoil reduction. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 04:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent reference. I think it's reasonable to continue to list 15% as approximate recoil reduction for low-velocity calibers (per Paulson et. al.) but to add, based on Mark White's article, that suppressors will typically reduce high-velocity caliber recoil by 20-30%.  One other critical change to the current text is to clarify that this is nominal recoil, not "felt" recoil.  As User:Georgewilliamherbert points out "felt recoil" is subjective and imprecise.  These are more precise numbers than most shooters can reasonably perceive and they are backed up by quantifiable physical effects, not perceptions. Dbooksta (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He's a good author. I have his book, the Ultimate 10/22, and it is chock full of info..he takes a very scientific approach to everything and backs it up with experimental data. Knows his stuff. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 02:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

P226 to Mosquito correction
The first picture's caption incorrectly referred to the last handgun in the photograph as the SIG P226 R. The handgun is actually a SIG Mosquito, which is smaller, has an external safety, and is chambered for .22lr. Zenmastervex (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You appear to be right, the caption by the uploader said it's a Mosquito... Annoying that nobody else noticed the goof earlier.  Good catch.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Surpressors and shotguns
Do they exist?
 * Oh, yeah, they do, read about Suppressors here and Shotguns here. Suppressors and shotguns both exist, if Wikipedia can be believed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.29.51 (talk • contribs)
 * Not only that, but suppressors for shotguns do exist, they're just tricky to do because of the risk of the shot hitting the baffles. This means you need an integral suppressor or a reflex design, such as this: http://www.guns.connect.fi/rs/rifles.html (bottom of page). scot 19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Why aren't shotguns discussed in the article? I mean, lets face it, most of us didn't even know they existed for shotguns till we saw No Country For Old Men. --98.232.181.201 (talk) 07:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why aren't they mentioned and pictured in the article? Also, the article could use an In Popular Culture section. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)