Silencers??!

[.338magnumshooter]

I have just bought a barrett 98B .338LAPUA MAGNUM,and am thinking of purchasing a silencer.does anyone know of a good manufacturer,and where I can buy one from?? I would also like to get some for my AR-15(5.56mm),springfield XD(.45),my glock(9mm),and sig sauer(.40)cal. I heard of gemtech,but would like to compare specs and pricing. Thanks,.338magnumshooter. Oh,by the way,does the silencer HELP,or HURT your accuracy??! I assume it would help,due to the extension of the barrel,but what do I know,LOL,again,THANKS...338magnumshooter.

 

[Chas1]

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you'll see similar threads on silencers such as Gemtech, Jet, AWC, and SSK inustries as well as some discussion on prices and accuracy etc.

 

[mmmooretx]

Jet will probably be the lightest as it is made from titanium but be sure to get the one with the muzzle brake.

 

[A/C Guy]

Silencers? no such thing. They are SUPPRESSORS.

Do they affect accuracy? yes.
Will you notice the difference at 100 yards? Not much.
WIll you notice a difference at 700 or 800 yards? yes

They do not aid by lengthening the barrel in the context that you are thinking. They do not have rifling, the are slightly larger than bore diameter, They extend the barrel but not the bore in that respect. They have an adverse effect on the gasses as they exit the bore. As a result, they do slightly, adversely affect the consistency of the P.O.I. But only slightly.


Since you are obviously uninformed on these, are you aware of the $200 tax on each plus the legal use and access requirements?
You may NEVER lend it to anyone. It must be in your possession or locked in a safe at all times. No one may have access to them when you are not home. Technically, no other person may have access to the safe (combo or keys) when you are not home. You will also need to set up a trust for all your type III items; not a legal requirement, but a definite must have for other reasons.

 

[Len Backus]

Paul has a great post over at Accurate Shooter.com that is the best help on the matter that I have seen. Also look at the website of the manufacturer he mentions. I may stop to visit them in Cheyenne next month. I have been thinking about a suppressor to reduce hearing loss risk in the case of forgetting to wear protection in the heat of the moment during a hunt.

The article mentions that MANY tactical competitors use suppressors and don't suffer in the accuracy area. I suppose not all suppressor brands are built as well in the area of accuracy -- just like barrels and other rifle components.

 

[Chas1]

Good read, lots of info on what it takes to acquire one. Thanks for posting the link Len.

 

[Zak Smith]

Glad you guys liked the article. It seems like whenever I give Paul an article that has suppressors in the photos, he gets feedback like, "What, aren't those illegal?!". He thought an overview article on legality and relevance to precision/long-range shooting would be good, and it looks like it was well received.

Len, give Shane Coppinger a call at our shop number to arrange a demo when you're in town.

A/C Guy - I don't know your experience and I am not going to get into it here about suppressors and accuracy; however, what you claim has not been our experience with regard to accuracy. There some suppressor designs which do harm accuracy but there are also some either have no change (ie "harm" is unmeasurable) or increase accuracy. It would be frustrating to have a 1/4 moa rifle that opens up to 1/2 or 3/4 when the suppressor is screwed on. The TBAC owners are all long-range competitors we simply won't put up with a suppressor that harms accuracy.

best regards,
Zak

 

[Pdvdh]

Re: Suppressors

I've been trying to educate myself on these devices. One thing I've read is that installing one on the AR15 type semi-auto .223s increases the fouling of the actions and requires an increased cleaning frequency. Could anyone with any experience with application to the AR15 types of rifles comment on how significant this affect is?

I'm leaning towards installing one on an AR15, but I don't want it to excessively foul the action and start causing jams or unreliable service. If the increased rate of fouling is real but limited enough that the operation of the action isn't significantly affected, then I think I'd proceed to purchase one.

My ears already produce the high-pitched tone of tinitus non-stop. And AR15s tend to be fired a lot more than bolt action rifles.

Having read the link, I'm also pretty interested in one for my 300 Win Mag. Glad titanium is in use, in order to minimize weight.

Could anyone comments on recoil reduction from one of these suppressors versus a good quality brake? I understand recoil reduction is pretty similar with either a muzzle brake and a suppressor?

 

[Zak Smith]

phorwath,

I'll jump in here and answer your questions. If you'd prefer, or have additional questions, feel free to call me. My cell is nine 7 oh 2 three 2 four four 68.

As a preface to the AR-15 fouling comments, let me add that a bolt rifle (or other closed breach action) will always be quieter than a semi-auto. If you think about it, the pressure at the gas port is fed back to the action and eventually is vented to atmosphere when the bolt rings pass the openings in the right-hand side of the bolt carrier. Furthermore, as soon as the bolt starts to unlock, there is a channel for the report sound to come back at the shooter.

The increase in fouling is significant, and it's not all due to the direct-gas impingement design of the AR-15. Suppressors retain pressure and when the bolt opens there is now a second path for gas retained in the suppressor and barrel to exit (other than the muzzle of the suppressor): the breach. When shooting a suppressed AR-15, there can be significant "gas in the face" sensation, and if you shoot a few mags you might end up with a dirty face.

Starting with an AR-15 properly lubed with something like CLP or FP-10, within 3 magazines it is likely there will be no lube left in the upper and lower. However, to moderate this description somewhat, a properly-built AR-15 should have no problems operating in this regime. I have a 12" SBR that I shoot exclusively suppressed, and I just leave it dry. It works fine, although it is a high-quality upper (Noveske) to begin with.

With regard to muzzle brakes vs. suppressors, I recently wrote this on another forum so I'll just copy and paste it

Here's the deal: brakes and suppressors both reduce recoil by transferring some of the momentum of the high-pressure gas that exits the muzzle to the rifle, effectively pulling it forward to counteract its rearward momentum due to bullet+gas impulse.

The most effective rifle muzzle brakes have a series of flat plates (ie a surface "normal" to the bullet path) approx 1" plus or minus a little bit in front of the muzzle. The has impacts these plates and pulls the rifle forward. After impacting these plates the gas is directed to the sides and out.

Suppressors have a series of baffles (a lot more than the brake and more sparsely spaced) that are designed to catch gas and turn sound/pressure into heat. They do this by delaying the gas release. In a bolt-action rifle (ie with a closed breach), the gas that was captured by the baffles is delayed in the suppressor but is ultimately pushed out the front. This is why suppressors produce a recoil impulse that is spread out over time, but is technically a little more than what the best brake would have.

I have extensive experience firing rifles from .223 up to .50 BMG suppressed and with a brake. As sort of a general impression, from .300WM and down, the suppressor feels like it has about the same or less recoil than a brake. Larger cartridges, such as .338LM as a particular example, have more recoil with a suppressor than the most effective brakes, but the recoil is more of a push than a hit, and the reduction in overpressure and transformation of the recoil impulse itself is "worth it."

Suppressors that have a brake "inside" -- that is, screw over or attach over a muzzle brake, perform substantially the same recoil-wise as a suppressor. This mounting system usually involves some compromises in terms of suppressor design in trade for recoil performance when the suppressor is absent. Since there is no place for the gas to go other than hitting the inner suppressor walls (after hitting the brake plates/ports), it is pretty much a suppressor for the purposes of my third paragraph, as opposed to a brake in which gas can actually ultimately exit some direction other than forward.

 

[Chas1]

Zak, I was reading on your website that the The 338P-1 is a high-performance big-bore suppressor, designed to suppress the report of the big .338 magnums to a level similar to a suppressed .308.

My question is how many decibels for a suppressed .308?

 

[Zak Smith]

Hi,

I didn't intend this to become a "product Q&A" thread, so I will keep this very brief. Due to de-facto differences in alleged "mil-spec" soundmeter results from different manufacturers, we do not publish our own in public forums for this reason. The best independent source for sound test data is John Titsworth's SilencerResearch.com site. He has had one of our new 30P-1 suppressors since Feb and I am not sure when he will be publishing the data. To cut a long story short, in our own testing using mil-spec equipment and methods, the 30P-1 suppresses amongst the best for .308 suppression levels.

The statement about the 338P-1 means that in our testing its absolute dB value was very very close to the absolute dB level of the 30P-1.

 

[Len Backus]

I didn't intend this to become a "product Q&A" thread,

Zak, since I have a personal hearing-health interest in the topic you have my blessing to continue the discussion as long as you'd like -- or start a new thread if you wish.

 

[Zak Smith]

A few comments on hearing damage. It is subtle and cumulative. Ever loud noise incurs some amount of hearing damage, and the more the person is exposed to it, the more damage accumulates.

Here is a good informational page about hearing loss
Dangerous Decibels: About Hearing Loss
and another
Noise and Hearing Loss

Most centerfire rifle suppressors will tune down a 160-175 dB report to 130-140 dB (measured 1 meter to the side of the muzzle, less at the ear). This is still well above the "safety" levels in those two hearing loss pages; however, take what you can get. If you cannot wear earpro for some reason, a suppressed report is a lot better than a brake or bare muzzle report. If you can wear earpro, a suppressed report will be almost unnoticeable.

In 2006 when I shot the Steel Safari the first time, I think I was the only, or one of maybe two, shooters who were competing with suppressors (I used a JET at that time). I won the match, division and overall that year. Since then, there has been a geometric increase in the proportion of shooters competing with suppressors.

If I am going to do a bunch of shooting (suppressed with full power ammo), I'll throw in a mild/weak set of earplugs just to preserve my hearing since I am so close to the muzzle. If I am spotting or near other suppressed shooters, I usually remove them just so I can communicate better. A suppressed report from several yards away is pretty quiet.

There is some difference person to person if they wear earpro while shooting suppressed and I personally attribute the difference to their pre-existing level of hearing damage: those with more damage simply notice less.

 

[Pdvdh]

Thanks for providing the additional information Zak.

I didn't know suppressors were legal when hunting in my home state (Alaska) until very recently.

My hearing sas damaged from gun fire in the late 60s and early 70s, before I knew any better. I've been careful to wear plugs and muffs ever since the cause and affect relationship of hearing damage from loud sounds was documented and made public knowldedge (many years ago now).

At this point, I wear molded in ear plugs, and double up with electronic muffs. But even then my ears will ring louder after exposure to gun fire. So I'm seriously considering controlling some of the noise at the source with a suppressor, in addition to wearing hearing protection.