-
How to Change Email Address and Recover Password: CLICK HERE to step by step instructions
sound suppressor
- Thread starter Goose25
- Start date
Here are some shameless pictures of my Fisher Enterprises M14 sound suppressor. It uses a quick detaching collar so the Smith Enterprise, Inc. Vortex flash hider remains on the rifle. I have some T T I Armory 170 grain subsonic ammunition for it which makes the arrangement very quiet when fired.
Different: I keep hearing that a suppressor causes the M14 to have cycling problems. I don't totally understand why this would be as the M14 gas system cuts off the gas supply when it has enough.
The M16, which has no such system works just fine with a can installed.
The M16, which has no such system works just fine with a can installed.
Suputin, when I use regular (not subsonic) ammunition with the Fisher Enterprises can the bolt cycles without any problem. The subsonic ammo doesn't have enough of a powder charge to cycle the bolt though. Even with Portugese ammunition, it's a lot quieter with the can installed. Using 168 grain Sierra hand loads, I can get three shot 1 " groups at 100 yards with the rifle and can pictured above. With a scope mounted on the rifle and a better shooter, I think it would do even better.
The Fisher Enterprises suppressor does not require any modifications to the gas system or barrel.
The Fisher Enterprises suppressor does not require any modifications to the gas system or barrel.
Last edited:
sigger69 said:
Excellent question. Us gun nuts in the USA quote the Second Amendment to the federal Constitution a lot.
On a practical level, suppressors, machine guns, mortars, short barrel rifles, and short barrel shot guns are regulated under a tax code law, the 1934 National Firearms Act. You pay a transfer tax when buying one of these items and go through a background check and get your local Law Enforcement blessing. Really, there's no guarantees when it comes to politics or freedom as history has shown.Here's my legally owned NFA Registered live real deal 60 mm M2 mortar and kit. The rounds are inert. Still, it's a ton of fun.
Here's my NFA Registered full automatic Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A:
I'm guessing the transfer taxes aren't a big money maker for the gov't these days. There are many people who don't want to be "registered" by the gov't. $200 back in 1934 was devised as a deterrence to civilian ownership of NFA firearms in those days.
Last edited:
WRENCHGOD said:
Working on it, my good man.
The Second Edition of the book will have over 100 color photographs and the text is now over 25,000 words longer than the First Edition. The Second Edition will also have a real Table of Contents and headers and footers throughout. I'm going to try to make it hard cover with a dust jacket. Since I'm the publisher, I won't be cutting anything out during the editing either.
Last edited:
- Location
- Sudbury, On
Skullboy said:
But what truly is defined as "significantly reducing" the sound signature?
I am going to assume you are asking at what level of sound reduction does a device become a suppressor or silencer in the law? Well Canadian law does not specify a sound reduction. Therefore it is possible that a device which produces a 1 dB net reduction could be classed as a silencer.
In the USA, they typically use 3 dB as the cutoff of what is and is not a silencer.
The problem for Canadians is that lots of muzzle brakes and other muzzle devices could produce a measurable sound reduction. The only saving grace is almost nobody knows how to properly sound test a gunshot. So a reasonably knowledgible person could easily tie the legal system in knots.
Different: OK now you have peaked my interest. What book did you write?
Suputin, I wrote M14 Rifle History and Development. The biggest complaint I heard was no photographs. True enough. I wrote, edited, published, marketed and shipped this book myself without even knowing what desktop publishing was. All I had was Microsoft Word. IIRC, at least two copies made their way to British Columbia, Canada.
Later, a fellow gun club member introduced me to the concept of desktop publishing software. I've now got a desktop publishing program. The next edition will be much better as described above. It will also be more expensive.
If you want to test drive, for free, a January, 2006 draft version of the next edition of the text, see the write up M14 Rifle History and Development at www.imageseek.com/m1a There's some other stuff on the M14/M1A there as well.
Later, a fellow gun club member introduced me to the concept of desktop publishing software. I've now got a desktop publishing program. The next edition will be much better as described above. It will also be more expensive.
If you want to test drive, for free, a January, 2006 draft version of the next edition of the text, see the write up M14 Rifle History and Development at www.imageseek.com/m1a There's some other stuff on the M14/M1A there as well.
Silencer correction
I'm gonna correct a bunch of you at the same time. First off, sound has nothing to do with air movement. In silencers the baffles do not slow or redirect the air they redirect the sound. There are 2 types of silencers or mufflers. Absorbtive and reactive. Absorbtive silencers do just that, absorb sound. Think of it this way. When you drive your car in the summer you hear "road noise". Have you noticed that in the winter (for those of us that get snow) the "road noise is reduced? That is because the snow absorbs the sound which is much less dense than concrete. Common materials used are fiberglass, foam, rubber, cotton or steel wool. Now in reactive silencers, baffles are used. These baffles redirect the sound back on it self, cancelling it out. Sound is nothing more than vibrations or energy. How do I know this? Its what I do for a living.
I'm tired, going to bed.
I'm gonna correct a bunch of you at the same time. First off, sound has nothing to do with air movement. In silencers the baffles do not slow or redirect the air they redirect the sound. There are 2 types of silencers or mufflers. Absorbtive and reactive. Absorbtive silencers do just that, absorb sound. Think of it this way. When you drive your car in the summer you hear "road noise". Have you noticed that in the winter (for those of us that get snow) the "road noise is reduced? That is because the snow absorbs the sound which is much less dense than concrete. Common materials used are fiberglass, foam, rubber, cotton or steel wool. Now in reactive silencers, baffles are used. These baffles redirect the sound back on it self, cancelling it out. Sound is nothing more than vibrations or energy. How do I know this? Its what I do for a living.
I'm tired, going to bed.
There's one area where our laws are better, we don't have to register our mortars. Heck, they aren't even controled one bit.Different said:Here's my legally owned NFA Registered live real deal 60 mm M2 mortar and kit. The rounds are inert. Still, it's a ton of fun.
- Location
- Sudbury, On
Suputin said:
Exactly what I was curious, because they also don't state from which direction this supposed sound reduction is coming from - such as the muzzle brake example you pointed out. Not to mention, is it measured from one spot - or many? If so, where, and how many? Are we finding an average, or simply a total count to see count if there's any decibal reduction at the end from any point as to making just about every muzzle-attached accessory possibly a prohibited device? Going by the typical court system, they are not in the favour of firearm communities, therefor, is this a quick-and-dirty way to add on yet another law in case their sad "careless" storage law would work? I'm guessing the courts themselves decide if the "intent in the manufacture of a sound reduction", as they are all-knowledgeable on such things I hear.
I think you have to get the guy holding the sound meter to stand 3 feet in front of the muzzle at precisely the angle of the bore to the the target. This is why we have difficulty in setting precise sound level definitions in law, its almost impossible to get 2 readings under the same conditions! There's always some idiot screaming in the background for the second shot.
Welp, I finally got to see one in action. A buddy of mine took me out to the range for some plinking and he broke out his silencer me to play with. They are pretty damn cool - significantly reduces the muzzle rise to the point where (at least on the ,223) there was next to none at all; also you can shoot to your hearts content with no ears on as the most you hear is the crack of the bullet, and you can even hear the action cycling - pretty ####ing cool
I also saw a guy shooting a 6.5mm with a can attached - that one was louder, and you'd need ears for it, but the muzzle rise was way down and the sound was probably halved - if not more.
I also saw a guy shooting a 6.5mm with a can attached - that one was louder, and you'd need ears for it, but the muzzle rise was way down and the sound was probably halved - if not more.
