it is SO much easier to hit, swiftly - Arms Locker
Arms Locker Gun Forum
Go Back   Arms Locker > Arms Locker > Gunsmithing


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-09-2016, 01:03 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
it is SO much easier to hit, swiftly

with a canned gun (when you aint got hearing protection) that there's no comparison, Novices learn 10x as fast with silenced guns, too. there is just no reason to assault your ears that much, nor upset the neighbors 3x as far away as would be the case with the suppressed full charge 223.
 
Remove Ads
Old 05-09-2016, 03:08 PM   #2
Registered User
 Garand's Avatar
 
Joined: Jun 2004
From: Canadian Badlands

Posts: 8,756

Try something new for a change!
 
Old 05-09-2016, 06:06 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
I like my AR, and I like my suppressor for my AR. But shooting a suppressed AR with full-power ammo still should include personal protective gear. While shooting a suppressed 223 AR does make less impact on your ears, it makes much more impact in your eyes, from the increased backpressure being directed straight back into your face from the gas tube.

It's noticeable, even with shooting glasses on. And the more effective a suppressor is (ie, the more it contains the pressure and gasses), the more it increases this in-your-face blowback. Laws of physics are what they are, and with a direct-impingement system, suppressors amplify the amount of barrel gas being directed at the shooter's face.

So while a suppressed AR is MUCH less traumatic to your eardrums than an unsuppressed AR, it's MORE traumatic to your eyes. Point being, suppressing an AR does not create a direct translation or comparison to shooting rimfire thru the AR. We've not only got a sealed breech vs. a blowback, we've got a higher pressure of gas, and a much higher volume of it as well.
 
 
Old 05-09-2016, 07:06 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
never felt anything on my face, but I shoot lefty, I wear glasses and my rifle can designs are superior, in that they easily vent away the hottest, highest pressure gases, into the "sleeve area".

I'm talking about day in and day out risk of combat and people won't be wearing glasses or ear plugs for that. The silencer is not needed for practice by the seasoned shooter. In fact, he doesn't need to fire even 1k rds of 223 per year. the other 4k or so rds can be thru the .22 unit.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 09:03 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
...my rifle can designs are superior, in that they easily vent away the hottest, highest pressure gases, into the "sleeve area"...
Vented into the sleeve area means still contained inside the suppressor; which is pretty much a shock-absorbing pressure vessel and has no choice (per the laws of physics) but to release that hot gas to all available exit points as fast as it possibly can. In the case of the AR's DI system, there are only two of these exit points - the gas tube and the muzzle - and that hot gas is screaming out of those two points with tens of thousands of PSI pushing it.

There being a fixed amount of hot, expanding gas involved in cartridge ignition, and pressure per square inch being a function of volume and temperature of gas packed into a given volume of container, there are two possible ways of reducing peak pressure. The first is to simply increase the container volume, making the suppressor body larger. Second way is to cool the gas faster, since gasses shrink in volume as they cool; so diverting them thru myriad channels (as in your outer-sleeve venting) helps to cool — and therefore shrink the volume of — the gas itself. This second approach can be accomplished with an outer sleeve/chamber as in your design, or via a primary blast chamber; both of which inevitably take up space. The outer-sleeve approach is also not a new concept — it goes back decades; including the old ‘reflex’ units, Norrell designs, and the integral MP5 suppressor. There are a LOT of suppressors that use an outer chamber, and MOST use a frontal chamber. Either one works, and either one also takes up space (adding size and weight) in the process. No way around it.

From commercial, CAD-designed units:










To home-made, cobbled-up units:





(I know, you prefer pounded-into-donut-shape window screen rather than the fiberglass or steel wool that some use.)

Fwiw, none of those are my pictures; they're the result of less than a minute of internet searching.

Point being, while the “venting to an outer sleeve” approach is effective, it’s a commonplace, decades-old approach; and something commonplace has no claim to “superior” status.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 11:19 AM   #6
Registered User
 DaRkWoLf's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
From: Miami, FL

Posts: 2,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by John in AR View Post
I like my AR, and I like my suppressor for my AR. But shooting a suppressed AR with full-power ammo still should include personal protective gear. While shooting a suppressed 223 AR does make less impact on your ears, it makes much more impact in your eyes, from the increased backpressure being directed straight back into your face from the gas tube.

It's noticeable, even with shooting glasses on. And the more effective a suppressor is (ie, the more it contains the pressure and gasses), the more it increases this in-your-face blowback. Laws of physics are what they are, and with a direct-impingement system, suppressors amplify the amount of barrel gas being directed at the shooter's face.

So while a suppressed AR is MUCH less traumatic to your eardrums than an unsuppressed AR, it's MORE traumatic to your eyes. Point being, suppressing an AR does not create a direct translation or comparison to shooting rimfire thru the AR. We've not only got a sealed breech vs. a blowback, we've got a higher pressure of gas, and a much higher volume of it as well.
RTV mod and appropriately sized gas ports help with much of this, but fully agreed.

Some commercial guns I've seen these days are so overgassed that they behave like suppressed AR's in unsuppressed usage. It's frightening. Part of me feels that companies sell the buffers and hyped widgets on behalf of it, but I know it's just from the need to get less warranty work from shooting crappy ammo and general incompetence with a lack of understanding of the platform.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 11:25 AM   #7
Registered User
 DaRkWoLf's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
From: Miami, FL

Posts: 2,927
Additionally, suppressors increase cyclic rate. The big benefit of certain reflex designs or their present derived technologies is that they reduce this. The faster that carrier is moving back, the more force it has. With an AR, trying to attack that problem with a buffering solution either makes recoil more drawn out and forward motion more impactful (to the point of not picking up a fresh round reliably), or makes the gun thump if spring resistance wasn't considered.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 12:16 PM   #8
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaRkWoLf View Post
Additionally, suppressors increase cyclic rate. The big benefit of certain reflex designs or their present derived technologies is that they reduce this. The faster that carrier is moving back, the more force it has. With an AR, trying to attack that problem with a buffering solution either makes recoil more drawn out and forward motion more impactful (to the point of not picking up a fresh round reliably), or makes the gun thump if spring resistance wasn't considered.
Agree; there's just a lot of dynamics going on in those microseconds after pulling the trigger, and any changes cause ripple effects. My main gun runs fine with the suppressor or with steel-cased wolf stuff. But with the suppressor AND steel-cased wolf stuff, it chokes one or two rounds per magazine. I just encountered this for the first time last year, and it's part of why I'm running thru the last of my put-back steel-cased stuff and going to all brass-cased reloadable stuff now. (It's also an example of why it's a good idea to actually test things rather than just read and theorize about them.)
 
Old 05-10-2016, 01:17 PM   #9
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
there's almost no need to practice suppressed. that's why I just laugh at such "problems". the problem is in your HEAD. Take the can off for practice and wear ear protection.k practice mostly with the .22 unit. saving wear on parts, gas cutting, etc.. Presto, problem fixed and a lot of money saved.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 02:36 PM   #10
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
there's almost no need to practice suppressed. that's why I just laugh at such "problems". the problem is in your HEAD. Take the can off for practice and wear ear protection.k practice mostly with the .22 unit. saving wear on parts, gas cutting, etc.. Presto, problem fixed and a lot of money saved.
But you DO say to use the suppressor when it's "for real", and those "problems" absolutely matter then. That's not in my head, that's measurable reality.

And if you're practice is different than than your "for real", well, different is different. There's a reason that MLB players don't practice with nerf bats and NBA players don't run drills on 6-foot nets.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 02:49 PM   #11
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
sure, but if your can only weighs 12 ozs, the difference in handling is irrelevant, under stress. those guys aint being SHOT-at, or killing people (maybe innocents) and the stress is nothing like as many x greater and a .22 is not a nerf bat, either.

Keep on wasting your money on 223 ammo. No reason i should gaf about it. But from a guy who's tried both 5000 rds of 223 per year, and 1000 rds, with 4k of .22lr's thru the 22 unit, there's no difference in skill maintenance, for really fast stuff, inside 75m, between a canned 223 and the 22 unit (without the can) not even detectable in practice, much less when under lethal stress.

what's been my experience, with net guys, is they have not shot 10% as much as they claim and none are, or have ever been, A class combat match competitors. so they do;n't even know what really good combat shooting IS

Last edited by nikto; 05-10-2016 at 05:09 PM.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 03:06 PM   #12
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
sure, but if your can only weighs 12 ozs, the difference in handling is irrelevant,
We're talking about malfunction issues, not handling issues. Practicing with my suppressor was fine. Practicing with that ammo was fine. Practicing with the suppressor AND that ammo, the gun malfunctions. If a person doesn't train with his "for real" setup, he'd never know that. And when it's "for real", not knowing that could get a person killed, couldn't it...
 
Old 05-10-2016, 05:51 PM   #13
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
I'd get rid of THAT can. That's a warranty issue. it better work, regardless. I keep telling people that you GOTTA have a sleeve area to vent the gases into, but nobody listens. it does nearly double the time needed to make the can, and the pos's want to make $500 an hour. When silencers come off of the NFA list, you're going to see $100 .22 cans and AR 223 cans for $250.

I go with 1 1/4" OD interior tube and 1 3/4" OD sleeve tube. both with .050" wall thickness, so the sleeve area has .200" all around. Full length, that's a lot of space and it's "stacked" full of single thickness screen wire, wrapped around the interior tube. So the gases flow thru the wire EASILY, but are exposed to maximal cooling, both on the way forward and when they bounce back. They are already vented away from the main baffle stack, of course. Empty space in the sleeve area doesn't do you NEARLY as much good as having that area be full of simple wrapped copper screen wire, altho right at the vent holes, it needs to be stainless steel screen. I never CLAIMED that the sleeve idea is "new", but the wrap idea IS. I have no idea how long the screen lasts. But I heard no change in sound after several hundred rds, but I dont do mag dumps and I AM half deaf, especially in one ear. As a commercial maker, I'd have to include a way to access the sleeve area, probably with a threaded front washer, which would make me have to use thicker wall tubing and be a huge pita, nearly doubling the price of the can.


how many rds of practice does it take to notice that there's a problem with a given rd? 50? :-) and maybe 100 more to know if you fixed it? So why keep on having such concerns. I"d have that sorted out in a weekend, but if you have to send it back to a maker, it might take you a month, but very rds need to be fired to do it.. The problem is probably the use of that FILTHY stinking powder the Russians use in their ammo. my GOD that stuff is nasty. I'd never use it, just because of that. For a guy claiming that reloading is "fun", why not just load your own? you can do it for the same price as the cheapest steel cased 223, and not be building up lacquer in your chamber, or risking scratching something with the steel cases.

Why do people get the idea I said to NEVER use the silencer for 223. What I say is it doesn't help 75m and closer stuff. That's not ALL you should practice with the combat rifle, for god's sake. and I certainly never said to use ANYTHING for serious stuff that has not been well vetted. But many thousands of rds per year, every year, on and on thru the can? wtf for?

Last edited by nikto; 05-10-2016 at 06:00 PM.
 
Old 05-10-2016, 07:28 PM   #14
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
I'd get rid of THAT can. That's a warranty issue. it better work, regardless.
And every pistol should work with every ammunition, regardless. And every size 15EEEE shoe should fit me exactly, regardless.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
I keep telling people that you GOTTA have a sleeve area to vent the gases into, but nobody listens.
You act like you’re some messianic voice in the wilderness shouting things that nobody knows. I just showed you multiple pictures of commercially-manufactured suppressors AND home-made suppressors that do exactly that.

You don’t actually use or make suppressors, but you do pontificate about them. Difference is that I do use them and don’t pontificate; I’m simply passing on personal experiences to be taken for whatever little they’re worth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
…When silencers come off of the NFA list, you're going to see $100 .22 cans and AR 223 cans for $250.
And when it rains Skittles from the sky….


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
…and it's "stacked" full of single thickness screen wire, wrapped around the interior tube.
Window screen… in a rifle suppressor… right…

True, it’s done often in rimfire suppressors and sometimes even in centerfire pistol suppressors. My Norrell-design Ruger used a version of it. And I do know that you advocate pounding window screen into puck-like donut shapes for your suppressor designs.

But the muzzle temperature of a centerfire rifle is right at the melting point of copper, and that’s just asking for possible trouble. If your window screen is less than true pure, you’re asking for certain trouble. Modern design and engineering lets the flow physics direct the gasses in ways that serve to cool themselves faster than running thru wraps of scrunched-up window screen. And after the first shot, (even if it doesn’t melt), with tens of thousands of PSI slamming 1800-degree gas into it, it will certainly be “scrunched up” at best.

You don’t actually build or use suppressors, but you do pontificate about them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
…For a guy claiming that reloading is "fun", why not just load your own?
You say that like I’m lying about what is fun for me. Frankly I don’t know anyone who reloads who DOESN’T enjoy it.

You don’t reload but you do pontificate about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
you can do it for the same price as the cheapest steel cased 223, and not be building up lacquer in your chamber, or risking scratching something with the steel cases.
The steel-cased wolf stuff that I posted a link to, that you said was a good deal and thanked me for, (wait for it....) has... no... lacquer...

The steel cases are much softer than a rifle chamber or bolt face and won’t scratch anything.

You don’t actually use any ammo, but you do pontificate about it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
Why do people get the idea I said to NEVER use the silencer for 223. What I say is it doesn't help 75m and closer stuff...
You constantly say the suppressor is necessary to improve hitting close-in, when it’s “for real”, since without it, flinch is inevitable. It’s one of your ten most-common pontifications.

You pontificate about guns, suppressors, and shooting, but come to think of it, you don’t actually use ANY of them, do you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
But many thousands of rds per year, every year, on and on thru the can? wtf for?
Because it’s paid for, it’s fun, it doesn’t cost anything, and because I can.

But that’s right – all your pontificating aside, you don’t actually own or use a suppressor.

I’ve tried to be nice, and I’ve tried to open the realities to you gently, but so be it. Fact is, you’re a non-shooting, 40-pounds-overweight, unemployed senior citizen.

I truly stand in awe…
 
Old 05-11-2016, 08:47 AM   #15
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
they are selling SO many more cans, every year, silencers are coming off of the NFA list. Ruger wouldn't be making them if they didn't think so. :-)

keep on trying to send me to prison, punks. :-) **** you. you're wearing ear protection at the range anyway, so why bother with the can? no reason. What it all comes down to, is you're here to brag about the money you can afford to waste. it's a status thing for you.
 
Old 05-11-2016, 09:05 AM   #16
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2014
From: USA

Posts: 3,050
you have no ****ing idea, punk. :-)
 
Old 05-11-2016, 12:05 PM   #17
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2004
From: Central Arkansas

Posts: 4,998
Fwiw, I’m rarely rude simply because (like most grown-ups) I don’t like being rude, and came back today to apologize for my tone. So, I apologize for my rude tone yesterday; and rudeness [/off] at this point; at least on my end.

That said, absence of rudeness doesn’t preclude the pointing out and correcting of publicly-spoken untruths…

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
keep on trying to send me to prison, punks. :-) **** you.
I’m not trying to ‘send you to prison’. We’ve never met; what interest could I have in you going to prison..? If I thought you were a genuine threat to society, I might. But I simply don’t believe you are; no threat at all.

Nor have I tried to get you to admit doing anything illegal. Just reiterating your own words – that you don’t shoot guns, use suppressors, etc. Simply repeating your own statements, ie, that you don’t do these things. I’m not baiting you; I’m simply affirming (and therefore reminding you of) your own statements.

And the fact that you haven’t done any of these things in decades, is certainly relevant to claims of expertise in these areas. Simply that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
…What it all comes down to, is you're here to brag about the money you can afford to waste. it's a status thing for you.
Please, for the sake of all our brain cells, read. (Okay, that might have been a little rude…) Nobody here other than you is fixating on money in any way at all. You, on the other hand, bring it up regularly and have even started multiple new threads specifically about money and expenses.

Yes, I own a commercially-made AR suppressor, bought 14 years ago iirc. List price was $650 plus tax; which is a whopping $46 per year investment on my part. You’ve bragged about $5k per year being nothing much to spend on a hobby, you’ve bragged about spending the current equivalent of $8000 on airfare getting to a match in Rhodesia nearly 40 years ago, and you’ve bragged about betting 4 month’s pay on a foot race. As far as I recall, I’v never brought up the price of my suppressor until now. You’re the only one perpetually fixating on money and talking about the vast sums you’ve spent.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nikto View Post
you have no ****ing idea, punk. :-)
I have all kinds of ideas, not all of which are particularly brilliant. To what specifically are you referring?
 
Reply

  Arms Locker > Arms Locker > Gunsmithing



Search tags for this page

baffle diameter

,

british sten and suppressor

,

john in ar 10x

,

john in ar suppressor

,

nikto when i get

,

practice 10x

,

steel wool suppressor

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes






Powered by vBulletin 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © 2003 - 2011 Arms Locker. All rights reserved.