USAF lays out specs for its new handgun

I have seen the website you are getting the pics from and there are many pics to go through...what I would like to see is a specific scaled diagram showing stage interupts at each point of movement in the cycling of the action. Has anyone put together anything like this yet?

I am assuming all of the parts are made from aluminum of course. So what about the Neilson device that tends to press a piston backwards against the barrel? Is there anything relative to that in suppressor technology? Or am I describing it incorrectly?

I seem to remember a Neilson Device for machine guns that would assist the recoil of the action through the barrel...kind of like a moving muzzle brake.
 
I am assuming all of the parts are made from aluminum of course.
Click to expand...
No, steel. Aluminum wouldn't hold up to the cycling abuse.

So what about the Neilson device that tends to press a piston backwards against the barrel? Is there anything relative to that in suppressor technology? Or am I describing it incorrectly?

I seem to remember a Neilson Device for machine guns that would assist the recoil of the action through the barrel...kind of like a moving muzzle brake.
Click to expand...
AFAIK the Neilson Device is specific to silencers. The technology and the name originated from Qual-a-Tech in the 80's. It has no use outside of the recoil operated pistol silencer and its only function is to allow the pistol to cycle normally with a weight attached to the end of the barrel.
 
Lot of wasted spit for a decision that is years off and involves the USAF, an outfit with a reputation of not knowing friend from foe. In short who cares?

Take Care

Bob
 
More "wasted spit" ... :p

From http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_handguns_070425w/

Congress halts Air Force plan for new handgun
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 25, 2007 13:17:42 EDT

Congressional negotiators have put a hold on the Air Force’s plans to replace the M9 9mm handgun so the Defense Department can consider the possibility of a joint plan for upgrading or replacing pistols.

The M9 is the standard issue sidearm for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and U.S. Special Operations Command, but the Air Force asked for $89.8 million in the 2007 wartime supplemental appropriations bill to start purchasing a replacement.

The request was not included in the compromise version of the bill approved Monday by congressional negotiators. Instead, lawmakers would provide $5 million for a study of the joint sidearm requirements, including any service-unique requirements, according to a report accompanying the bill.

Because the supplemental bill faces a veto threat over issues unrelated to the handgun purchases, the only certain result of the agreement is that the Air Force will not get money anytime soon for a replacement weapon. Money for the handgun review would not be available unless this bill, or another bill containing similar language, is approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bush.

The study requested by lawmakers, to be completed by Aug. 31, would look at the M9’s capabilities, lethality and ammunition options, as well as how it stacks up against other handguns. The Aug. 31 date was picked because that would allow the results of the study to be considered when Congress puts together the final details of the 2008 defense appropriations bill, which traditionally is not approved until fall.

To conduct the study, lawmakers approved the purchase of up to 50 handguns and ammunition for the guns.

For years, talk has circulated about having a so-called Joint Combat Pistol, most likely a .45 caliber because that is what the Special Operations Command has been studying. In the early 1980s, the Air Force conducted several handgun tests to find something other than the M9, but no final decisions were made, partly because the Army and Special Operations Command had different requirements and wanted to conduct their own tests. The Army later did conduct its own tests, and did not recommend a replacement.
 
NATO compatibility? LOL

This may come as a shock, but I do believe we are capable of providing our own ammunition for the military wherever it may be. It would be nice if NATO went to .45.
9mm is OK if someone is not hyped up on adrenalin and wanting to inflict grevious bodily harm on you before he drops dead.

The U.S. had to learn that the hard way around 1900, but the military seems to have forgotten that. The reason that 9mm handguns have high cap magazines is because you are going to NEED all those extra rounds. By the way, don't use the germans as an example. The pistol was more of a badge of office to Europeans then a fighting weapon.
 
Last edited:
The pistol was more of a badge of office to Europeans then a fighting weapon.

Uncle carried a Webley in his tank up Italy and across Europe in 1944. Never fired his pistol once - did his tank! He always said that was what he was going to throw on the ground when and if he ever had to surrender. He claimed he couldn't hit anything with it anyway so why bother trying. To him it was a badge of office.

Take Care

Bob
 
John Sukey said:
This may come as a shock, but I do believe we are capable of providing our own ammunition for the military wherever it may be. It would be nice if NATO went to .45.
9mm is OK if someone is not hyped up on adrenalin and wanting to inflict grevious bodily harm on you before he drops dead.

The U.S. had to learn that the hard way around 1900, but the military seems to have forgotten that. The reason that 9mm handguns have high cap magazines is because you are going to NEED all those extra rounds. By the way, don't use the germans as an example. The pistol was more of a badge of office to Europeans then a fighting weapon.
Click to expand...


The NATO FMJ 9mm packs a better punch than the rounds of 1900 and more power than your average 124gr target round. Actually if you want more punch go 357Sig, then you can still use small frame pistols. I like .45acp, but it's not the "manstopper" people like to believe. both bullets have pluses and minuses and are limited in miltary operations by the requirement to use FMJ.
 
The U.S. had to learn that the hard way around 1900, but the military seems to have forgotten that. The reason that 9mm handguns have high cap magazines is because you are going to NEED all those extra rounds. By the way, don't use the germans as an example. The pistol was more of a badge of office to Europeans then a fighting weapon.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about Philippines? What did they use a .38? 9mm is a bit more powerful than that...

BTW the reason why most full size 9's have high capacities is because they can ;)
 
"140 decibels at least"

That sounds weird. I don't think there is such a silencer out there today that can reduce by that much....
Click to expand...
Well you are dead wrong. All decent suppressors bring the noise of the shot below 140 dB and that includes 9mm, 556 and 762 suppressors. 140 dB is the limit for hearing damage from impulse sound so a suppressor has to be able to bring the noise of the shot below that level in order to be hearing safe.

SigArms P220 TB Coming Soon AAC Blackbox Suppressor (USA)
Click to expand...
You might want to modifiy the "soon" in that statement as the Blackbox hasn't even gone into production yet.
 
Dave L. said:
I bet they're going to pick the Heckler & Koch USP Socom Mark 23!

- Dave.
Click to expand...


I bet they don't. The problem with these pistols is that they are too damn big. Most people without large hands don't enjoy them. I've fired on and that was enough to send me back smiling to my 1911a1, they are just plain massive, you need mits like a bear to shoot it comfortably. The new HK would be a better choice, though the M&P would fill the role nicely as well.
 
Suputin said:
Well you are dead wrong. All decent suppressors bring the noise of the shot below 140 dB and that includes 9mm, 556 and 762 suppressors. 140 dB is the limit for hearing damage from impulse sound so a suppressor has to be able to bring the noise of the shot below that level in order to be hearing safe.


You might want to modifiy the "soon" in that statement as the Blackbox hasn't even gone into production yet.
Click to expand...


Suputin, I think he misunderstood the passage to mean 140 dB REDUCTION not, to below 140,

thanks for the interesting posts you put up for peckerwood, the recoil boosting devices are very interesting.....

you mentioned useing space in one as a grease chamber for modified atmosphere use? what exactly do you mean?
 
you mentioned useing space in one as a grease chamber for modified atmosphere use? what exactly do you mean?
Click to expand...
There are two ways to use a pistol caliber suppressor. Dry, which is where the real sound reduction numbers are because this shows how well the baffle stack really works.

The other way is "wet" which means some type of coolant is added to the silencer to increase the sound reduction. The proper silencer terminology is "artificial environment" however I have a background in food processing where we would talk about "modified atmosphere packaging" and the term just stuck with me. :)

In the case of a pistol suppressor with a booster, the booster will generally act as a grease reservoir which helps keep the booster working smoothly and help with the sounds reduction as the grease is blown into the baffle stack through ports in the booster piston.

Suputin, I think he misunderstood the passage to mean 140 dB REDUCTION not, to below 140,
Click to expand...
I hope so as 140 dB net reduction is just a tad beyond impossible. The best silencers are capable of around 40 dB net sound reduction but that depends on caliber.

Good rimfire cans are capable of 40 dB as are wet pistol caliber cans. Rifle caliber suppressors generally operate around 25-35 dB net.

The airforce is asking a fait bit from thise suppressor as there are only two hearing safe .45 pistol cans that I know of and one hasn't even entered production yet. So really their only choice at the moment is the KAC suppressor designed for the HK MK23. I don't know how much interest there is by other manufacturers in developing such a can. The KAC can cost a reported $1,000,000 to develop. Unless there is a HUGE fricken contract or serious interest in civilian sales, no company is going to invest that sort of coin into an uncertain project.
 
Last edited:
Suputin said:
Well you are dead wrong. All decent suppressors bring the noise of the shot below 140 dB and that includes 9mm, 556 and 762 suppressors. 140 dB is the limit for hearing damage from impulse sound so a suppressor has to be able to bring the noise of the shot below that level in order to be hearing safe.


You might want to modifiy the "soon" in that statement as the Blackbox hasn't even gone into production yet.
Click to expand...
According the shop I ordered it from he said a couple of weeks. But the reports I read on the net say July. Now that spring is here in full effect July will come sooner then you think. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom