silencer for sendero

[rick smith]

Old #7, doubt very seriously a bricked dropped from a tree will break two treated 2x8s stacked one behind the other but the 220 gr Sierra out of a 300 Whisper will shoot completely through them. Your head may be hard but that would scramble what is between your ears. I killed a opossum in my garage with a 22CB cap and they are tough vermin. Shot placement is the important consideration, let him look directly into the end of the barrel.Rick.

 

[Asa Yam]

I stand by my position, if you want to use a surpressed rifle for it's real purpose, you need to shoot subsonic ammo.

Why is the US Army looking at suppressing 7.62 NATO and .50 BMG sniper rifles when they have ZERO intention of supplying subsonic ammo for them? Why are SWAT entry teams suppressing 5.56mm assault rifles, while employing supersonic 55, 62, or 75/77 grain ammo?

ANSWER: They're suppressing muzzle signature. Less blast and flash, and as a side benefit, less recoil too. From http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm (PROJECT MANAGER SOLDIER WEAPONS, SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, 31 July 2003) re: XM107 rifle (Barrett .50 BMG rifle):

Issue #3: Suppressor

Discussion: Snipers would like to have a suppressor for their weapon system to allow them to be both silent and deadly. Snipers feel that a suppressor would reduce their signature, and in doing so, would not easily compromise their position (reports of dogs compromising snipers in both Afghanistan/Iraq).

Recommendations: Develop a suppressor for the XM107.

And for the M24:

Issue #5: Suppressor

Discussion: See XM107 comments

Recommendations: See XM107 comments

Oh, just remembered another reply to your issue re: muzzle signature. I've had thousands of bullets fly overhead - it's called pulling targets at a rifle range. At 200 yards and beyond, the sound of muzzle discharge is quite faint. However, the crack of the bullet flying overhead is quite loud.

On an marginally related note, there are some nice high-speed spark photos of an unsuppressed and suppressed pistol being fired at http://www.mne.psu.edu/psgdl/SettlesAmS ... t_2006.pdf - scroll down to page 10 of 11, and look for Figure 12 at the top of the page.

 

[rick smith]

Asa Yam, buddy you don't give up. We are talking hunting rifles here and I for one am not concerned with muzzle flash, 50BMG, entry rifles, etc. The Army is trying to capitilize on a very fotunate effect of supressors. I am not arguing that could be useful to them. But for a hunting rifle????? Don't think so.
I stand by my position, if you want to use a surpressed rifle for it's real purpose, you need to shoot subsonic ammo. Maybe I should add something about hunting rifles.
By the way, the Army has screwed up more than one time with our weapons. I am a former infantry platoon leader and spent a year in Vietnam "hunting" in the jungle. So don't try to tell me they don't make mistakes with their choice of weapons.Rick.

 

[Asa Yam]

Rick,
Considering it's the "hunters" in the Army that are pushing for the change I feel it's perfectly relevant to the discussion.

And you were the one that brought firing from inside a room into the discussion in the first place.

 

[rick smith]

Inside a room, subsonic rounds are quite adequate and won't alert everyone in the house. A very good thing for units like the Seals or Delta force.
The army "hunters" need to be concerned with flash surpression, deer hunters only need be concerned with noise. I seriously doubt that the "hunters" in the Army are the one's pushing for this. It would have to come from a higher source.Rick.

 

[Asa Yam]

The army "hunters" need to be concerned with flash surpression, deer hunters only need be concerned with noise. I seriously doubt that the "hunters" in the Army are the one's pushing for this. It would have to come from a higher source.Rick.

Since you missed it before, from http://www.bob-oracle.com/SWATreport.htm (PROJECT MANAGER SOLDIER WEAPONS, SOLDIER WEAPONS ASSESSMENT TEAM REPORT 6-03, OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM, 31 July 2003) re: XM107 rifle (Barrett .50 BMG rifle):

Issue #3: Suppressor

Discussion: Snipers would like to have a suppressor for their weapon system to allow them to be both silent and deadly. Snipers feel that a suppressor would reduce their signature, and in doing so, would not easily compromise their position (reports of dogs compromising snipers in both Afghanistan/Iraq). (Emphasis mine.)

Recommendations: Develop a suppressor for the XM107.

And for the M24:

Issue #5: Suppressor

Discussion: See XM107 comments

Recommendations: See XM107 comments

The "higher source" pushing fielding of suppressors is the Project Manager, Soldier Weapons System. This position is based on input from the field - i.e., from the snipers.

The XM-110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System will be issued with a suppressor. See http://knightarmco.com/sass.pdf for photos.

For hunting game animals in the US, http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/hush.html has this to say on the subject of suppressed centerfire rifles:

"What happens if you fire a supersonic round from a weapon with a suppressor that only deals with muzzle blast?"

The answer is that the bullet still breaks the sound barrier but there is no muzzle blast. In practical terms this means the target can hear that it is being shot at, but has more difficulty determining where from. (Emphasis mine.)

Using a supersonic/normal velocity round in a suppressed weapon has several advantages, and this is the topic of the rest of this article.

• Firstly, the weapon has the same range and terminal effects as an unsuppressed weapon.
  
• As well as reducing the noise of the muzzle blast, the suppressor also hides any muzzle flash. Because the muzzle blast is contained, firing when in a prone position does not throw up any dust or debris. In short, not only is it harder to hear where the shooter is, it is also harder to see him!
  
• Suppressors also have a recoil reducing effect. This is partially due to gas pressure against the end cap, but also due to reduced velocity of the gas leaving the suppressor muzzle. This phenomenon is explained better here (Link to http://guns.connect.fi/gow/highpow.html - Asa). Unlike a muzzle brake, the suppressor does not throw gases out to the side, to the detriment and discomfort of companions. On certain weapons it has been noticed that the fitting of a suppressor reduces muzzle flip and climb when firing.
  
• For some weapons the use of a suppressor improves accuracy, since the bullet emerging from the gun receives less buffering from turbulent gases.
  
• The reduced noise level of firing a suppressed weapon has another, often unappreciated advantage. It is well known that firing can produce temporary and permanent reductions in hearing, which is why shooters wear ear protectors when possible. When hunting or in combat this is often not practical, but firing will also reduce your hearing efficiency under the conditions when you need your senses at an optimum. Using a suppressed weapon helps protect a shooter's hearing. (Emphasis in text.) One of the reasons that many SWAT teams use suppressed SMGs is to reduce the sound hazards from gunfire in confined spaces, such as building interiors. (Emphasis mine.)

In summary, a suppressed firearm with supersonic ammunition has less blast and flash, less recoil and protects the shooter from hearing damage. These benefits come without any reduction in range, accuracy or lethality. (Emphasis in text.)

An interesting side benefit of Suppressors is that for many individuals it is easier for them to learn the fundamentals of marksmanship without the distraction of noise and muzzle blast.

Suppressed Guns for Hunters.

The main advantage for a hunter in using a suppressed weapon is that it helps protect his hearing. A dog's hearing is far more sensitive than a man's, so using a suppressed rifle will also protect the health of your hunting dogs too.
Reduced firing noise will spook the local animals less and not disturb the peace and quiet of any humans in the area. (Emphasis mine.)

Since hunting rifles are "often carried, occasionally fired" many hunters wisely select lightweight weapons. The recoil reducing effects of the suppressor may be appreciated for such arms.

In the US acquiring a suppressed fire arm requires a lot of red tape and has a $200 tax fee. This expense should be balanced against the value you place on the preservation of your hearing.

 

[rick smith]

Hope you don't really believe all that you have quoted. Putting a small piece of canvas on the ground under the muzzle will also stop dust and dirt from being blown around. You should read all of the material you are taking quotes from. Specifically having to do with that from anglefire where they mention using subsonic ammo.
You keep wanting to go to all the possible effects from surpressors and are selectively taking quotes from me and certain articles, guess you think I will forget what I said to begin with, if you want to use a supressed rifle for it's real purpose, you need to shoot subsonic ammo. We are talking hunting game animals here. You seem to be very concerned with the other attributes of surpressors that are in your quotes but if you read the list, looks like someone is selling snake oil. Makes some rifles more accurate, so does changing ammo, etc. You may be involved with some of this research, which is great. But for hunting game animals most of what you have offered is of little or no use.Rick.

 

[Asa Yam]

Putting a small piece of canvas on the ground under the muzzle will also stop dust and dirt from being blown around.

This assumes the cloth isn't blown away or shredded by the muzzle blast. A large volume case (Magnum or .50 BMG) will do just that.

You keep wanting to go to all the possible effects from surpressors and are selectively taking quotes from me and certain articles, guess you think I will forget what I said to begin with, if you want to use a supressed rifle for it's real purpose, you need to shoot subsonic ammo.

No.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor

While suppressors are most effective with subsonic cartridges, they can be used effectively with supersonic cartridges. (Emphasis mine.) The crack of the supersonic bullet cannot be avoided, but the suppressor will reduce the sound of the muzzle blast, and make it more difficult to locate the source of the shot by muzzle blast sound location. Suppressors are most effective to the side and rear of the shooter, so a suppressor could be used by a sniper effectively. Observers not in the target area would hear the least, and the crack of the arriving bullet will tend to increase the difficulty of location from the area of the target.

And

Suppressors and Silencers
No suppressor can completely eliminate the sound of firing a firearm. Even subsonic bullets make distinct audible sounds simply flying through the air and hitting targets, and supersonic bullets produce a sonic boom shock wave as well with a much louder crack. Semi-automatic firearms also make a distinct noise as their action cycles, ejecting the old empty cartridge and loading a new one.

Some suppressors do an extremely effective job of quieting the muzzle blast sound from firing, to the point that the action and bullet sounds are as loud or louder than the muzzle blast escaping the suppressor. These are often inaccurately referred to as silencers; however they do not completely silence the shot's other sounds.

Very effective suppressors either take large total suppressor volume, moderately large volume plus many baffles, or wipes. It is possible to design a very small and compact suppressor with wipes which effectively silences a pistol; these suppressors have a lifetime of as few as 4-5 shots and typically no more than a few magazines of ammunition. Larger wipeless (baffle only) pistol or rifle suppressors may be nearly as effective for long lifetimes (hundreds or thousands of shots) but are relatively bulky, clumsy, and heavy.

Most suppressors designs trade reduced total volume and weight for somewhat louder noise, which is still significantly tactically useful. The optimum point for any particular design depends on the suppressor's intended usage.](Emphasis mine.)

We are talking hunting game animals here...
But for hunting game animals most of what you have offered is of little or no use.

Is it of little or no use that a shooter can take a suppressed hunting rifle into the field and:

• Fire supersonic supersonic ammunuition through it - and never run the risk of suffering hearing damage by doing so?
• Reduce the recoil of a lightweight hunting rifle by 20-30%?

Most hunters NEVER consider downrange noise as a factor for hunting. For people such as these, blast and recoil reduction benefits of a suppressed rifle are of far more interest than any reduction in downrange noise. In fact, firing subsonic ammunition also compromises terminal performance of the bullet, since expansion is often tied to velocity at impact.

 

[old #7]

I didn't think it was legal to use a suppressor on a hunting rifle.
I don't think most people would use subsonic ammo on game animals. Would you shoot at an elk or deer with a 220 gr bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1100 fps :shock:. Maybe you might if you were ten feet away with a good ear shot.
I have shot subsonic ammo from inside the house to an outside location and the noise level will alert others in the house.

 

[Asa Yam]

I didn't think it was legal to use a suppressor on a hunting rifle.

It appears this depends on the state. In Texas, it is not legal to hunt game animals with a suppressed rifle. On the other hand, I once emailed the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and received the following reply:

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has no regulations regarding hunting with a suppressor. You would need to use equipment that does not violate any Local, State, or Federal laws.

 

[rick smith]

Old # 7, Subsonic ammo has to be fired in a surpressed weapon for the entire "silent" effect. Firing subsonic ammo in a nonsurpressed weapon will not. A 220 started at less than the speed of sound will easily kill deer at 100yds.

Asa Yam, if I were worried about a little recoil I could change calibers, go to a lighter bullet, reduce velocity, shoot a heavier rifle, etc. If I were worried about hearing loss I could wear plugs/muffs etc. I understand hearing loss is cumlative. The hearing loss I now have is thanks to my time in the Army. I fire 2-3000 rounds of rifle/pistol a year at the range and protect my hearing. Hearing loss since leaving the service is more due to aging.
You are apparently impressed with the research you are quoting and for some reason think that posting the quotes will change what I think about all this, wrong. I have shot surpressed rifles with/without subsonic ammo. Taken the surpressor off and fired both types of ammo. Best descripition I have heard of a surpressed rifle firing regular ammo, " sounds like someone hit a metal pole with an aluminum bat". Even with a surpressed rifle and subsonic ammo there is some sound but there is sound connected with a bow/arrow even throwing rocks.

I invite you and Old # 7 to check SSK Industries. Asa Yam you might want to give JD Jones a call and talk with him about surpressed weapons.Rick.

 

[Asa Yam]

Asa Yam you might want to give JD Jones a call and talk with him about surpressed weapons.

Rick,

Thank you, but I have no need to contact Mr. Jones. Even he will install suppressors on rifles firing supersonic ammunition. Need proof? From http://www.sskindustries.com/tactical.htm :

This SSK supressed 308 is built on a Remington stainless M-700 action.
Scope is the new Nightforce 2--10X military model with several
reticules optional. Rifle and suppressor finishes optional.

And

.50 Peacekeeper - Brown Single Shot Action
McMillan Tactical Stock - NightForce Extreme Optics
Muzzle Device to reduce signature.

NOTE: Subsonic ammunition for a .50 Peacekeeper does not exist.
The "muzzle device" in the photo is a suppressor.

From http://www.sskindustries.com/rifle.htm:

Three different type Custom SSK rifles. The top is a Remington 700 .308 in a Choate tactical stock.
Next is a Suppressed M-70 Winchester in 308 set up for animal control. (Emphasis mine. And yes, I know subsonic .308 ammo is available - but many shooters and agencies don't use it.)
Bottom unit is a SSK suppressed M-70 in 338 WHISPER®.

An acquaintance used to be a Class 3 manufacturer (machine guns and supressors), and built some really effective suppressors. Everything from pistols to .300-221 Fireballs, to MG-34 machine guns and .50 BMG rifles. Ever listen to a .50 BMG being fired without hearing protection? No, it doesn't completely suppress the noise of the shot. However, it greatly reduces the muzzle blast. All of my previous statements are backed up either by personal experience, or by that of my friend's.

 

[rick smith]

Yep, can just look at the cases and know they are supersonic rounds, just kidding. Asa, I know the research you have been quoting lists many other qualities of surpressors but I still stand by what I have been saying through this entire post. Guy asks a question about a hunting rifle and you have taken this through military development, a number of interesting charts and quotes that has added to our edification. Bottom line is if you want the quietest, it has to be a surpressor with subsonic ammo.Rick.

 

[old #7]

Rick, I know that you need to fire subsonic ammo through a suppressor for the "silent effect".
I still think shooting any game animal with subsonic ammo is very questionable and I would not recomend it. I also don't believe using a suppressor is legal in most states.
Rick wrote

A 220 started at less than the speed of sound will easily kill deer at 100yds.

I don't think most rifle hunters would use that round. Would the 220gr bullet fired at that velocity penetrate bone? would you take a shot on a deer quartering to you with that round. What in the velocity of that bullet @ 100yds? In my opinion NOT ENOUGH to use on a deer. On a ground squirrel on paper it would be fine.
My balistics program shows that a 220 gr round nose fired at 1000 fps will drop 18" @ 100yds and have 434 ft lbs remaining. The program also shows that the bullet will drop 8" between 75 to 100 yds.
Does that sound like an effective hunting round?

 

[rick smith]

It will kill deer at 100 yards and will penetrate bone. Get some experience with the round before you condemn it. You will be surprised. I have been. Opinions are like belly buttons, we all have them. If you choose not to think it will cleanly take deer, that is fine. It is definitely not a round for everyone. I also have been told that the 7BR and 308x1.5 Barnes are not powerful enough for deer yet I have taken over 100 whitetails with these two rounds. Experience is a good teacher.Rick.

 

[LoneStar]

Would you shoot at an elk or deer with a 220 gr bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1100 fps :shock:

Hehehe, I love that statement. Countless head of game are killed every year with 200-250 grain bullets going 1000-1200 fps - out of handguns. The bullets break bone easily, even on elk-sized game. True, these are bullets of .410" and larger diameter - but a .308 bullet of that weight has a much higher sectional density and will penetrate deeper. I suppose that a 230-grain .45 Auto bullet at 850 fps is just like a ping pong ball? I suggest that someone get out more....or at least read about all the handgun hunters who kill game every year with subsonic bullets. :roll:

.

 

[old #7]

Lone Star,
I get out quite a bit and I have read alot of things that other people do.
I have read of 900+yd shots on elk with a rifle.What range are the shots on elk taken with a hand gun?

I won't attempt to take a deer or elk with my bow, 357 or especially my 45 auto at 100yds. 50 to 60 yds I think is about the max for a clean kill.
Yes, you could kill deer or elk at longer ranges but I don't think that is a shot to take.
On another thread in this forum there was a guy talking about shooting at a black bear ,I believe with a 300 win, out to 500 yds. Alot of guys said he shouldn't take the shot @ 500 yds. Why not? A 180gr bullet fired @3000 fps will still be traveling @ 2162 and carring 1870 ftlbs with it.
That would be much more effective on a deer, elk, and a bear than a 45 auto.

I guess I would prefer a clean kill and while I am confident in my ability to shoot, hit and kill game with a hand gun @ 25yds, I am not out to 100 or as far as 200yds, so I ethically choose not to.

If a bullet is fired from a gun at 3200 fps won't the bullet hit and potentially kill the animal before it hears the shot???????????
So what is the PRACTICAL purpose of subsonic hunting ammo especially out of a rifle like a sendero? And again, is it legal to use a suppressor on game?

Kind of off topic but, A police officer in Albany, Oregon was involved in a shooting a couple of years ago. The officer was shot in the forehead at 2 feet with a 45 auto slug weighing 230 grs. The slug penetrated the skin, flattened out on his bone, traveled to the side of his head and exited behind his ear. This was not a glancing shot. The officer recovered 100%

 

[Sharpsman]

I didn't think it was legal to use a suppressor on a hunting rifle.
I don't think most people would use subsonic ammo on game animals. Would you shoot at an elk or deer with a 220 gr bullet with a muzzle velocity of 1100 fps :shock:. Maybe you might if you were ten feet away with a good ear shot.
I have shot subsonic ammo from inside the house to an outside location and the noise level will alert others in the house.

old#7

A .45/70 all-lead cast bullet will penetrate 4" of sun-dried hard oak wood from 800 yds.!! It starts out at 1100 fps!! :wink: :shock:

 

[rick smith]

Old # 7, Your reference to the officer being shot from two feet with a 45auto, are you implying that the 45 auto is not a good round for self defense? Reminds me of several things I have seen. Operating room pictures of a motar round being removed from a soldier's chest. The round penetrated behind the collar bone and was lodged between the ribs and skin covering the chest. Personally saw a helmet the was hit top dead center by a motar round that didn't explode. Soldier suffered a concussion. Another was a helmet, steel pot, hit by a 7.62x39 on the left side. Bullet circled between the steel pot and helmet liner. Exited the other side of the steel pot. Soldier soiled his pants and nearly passed out but was fine. Strange things happen. Just not their day to leave Mother Earth.
You may not think the 220gr round is sufficient to break bone but you are incorrect. You are basing your opinion on numbers from a computer generated chart or chart from a manual. I am basing my opinion on practical experience. Sharpsman and Lonestar have provided solid info for thought.Rick.

 

[old #7]

Rick,
I believe the 45 auto is an exelent gun for self defense especially with a 230 hydroshock. All I was implying was some times bullets don't perform in the field the same as in a lab.
I happen to carry one and my wife also carries a 45 auto.
I am not a book sort of guy. I only used the ballistic table to better illistrate my point. I won't shoot subsonic rounds (out of a rifle) at a game animal out to 200yds. I would rather use a flatter shooting round with ample energy to do the job.
I do believe there is a benefit to the shooter and his using a suppressor with normal ammo.
I don't know about you guys but, I am getting worn out.
This has been a great debate.
Good thing we all are on the same side. (pro gun and pro hunter)