Talk:Silencer (firearms)

message: There seem to be a section missing on how a Suppressor/Silencer affect bullet velocity. It's a common misconception that putting a suppressor on a gun will always yield less accuracy and less bullet velocity, when in fact the opposite is true in many cases.
Modern suppressors have no direct contact with the bullet and their design actually increase bullet velocity.
Unfortunately I can't find any real good references that elaborate on the circumstances and when it increase the velocity and when it doesn't for this, which is why I put this here instead of directly in the page.
Here are a few youtube videos about the effect on bullet velocity with a mounted suppressor:
* Gunner Fact or Fiction | Suppressors https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeWL3EL1ymM
* 3 THINGS Video Games get wrong about silencers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWK2jHG5XfE
And here are a few articles:
* THETRUTHABOUTGUNS.COM: Ask Foghorn - Does a Silencer Affect the Velocity of the Bullet? http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/05/foghorn/ask-foghorn-does-a-silencer-effect-the-velocity-of-the-bullet/
* AccurateShooter.com: Suppressors - What You Need to Know http://www.accurateshooter.com/gear-reviews/suppressors-what-you-need-to-know/
* The Firearm Blog: Suppressors affecting velocity https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/11/16/suppressors-affecting-velocity/
Perhaps this should somehow be combined with the info on how recoil is affected by a suppressor?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.55.110.220 (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Section: Effect on bullet velocity? 

message: Unfortunately, this section is needlessly complicated and unclear (i.e.: discussing irrelevant items, use of incorrect terms, etc.). These paragraphs were obviously written by someone unacquainted with the principles of firearm suppression that are widely accepted by the industry. Cleaning it up a bit to aid comprehension.108.181.1.84 (talk) 22:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 'Sources of firearm noise' 

message: The vocabulary used throughout much of the article is either confusing or misleading, and in some cases just doesn't make any sense (looks like some of it was translated using google). Article could be significantly reduced to facilitate understanding by removing items that are discussed repeatedly and/or are contradictory.108.181.1.84 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs work, thanks for taking the initiative. Just be careful when deleting text that you do not wipe out any references, particularly named ones, as other sections may be relying on the information and they get hosed up as a result.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

text: It may have been a previous editor, I rolled it back a bit to be safe.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

text: I agree with you completely. Do what you need to do, ping me if you need help with sources or formatting, but it seems like you have a good handle on it. Time's getting scarce for me again. Some advice, though, if you mention a brand name...some dirtbag socialist with only 2 nickels in his pocket will call it advertising. Mention the NFA laws in the US outside of 1 paragraph and people from countries where you need a license to see a picture of a firearm in a magazine will call it US-centric. If you say how nobody has ever been killed with a legally owned suppressor or mention that they are actually a safety device to protect hearing, the same types will accuse you of POV pushing. :) Just kidding, but not really.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other issues 

message: I would appreciate more detail on the section on "Attachment".
Some years ago, at a time when there was no information at all on attachment in the article, I made a similar request. Now there is rudimentary information but the topic is still very mysterious. The article says that 
"most suppressors have a "female" threaded end, which attaches to "male" threads cut into the exterior of the barrel"
and that this applies in particular to handguns. But this cannot be a simple matter. On a semi-automatic pistol, the barrel is in most cases completely enclosed within the slide, so a major modification of both barrel and slide would be necessary to have the silencer attach by means of external threads. On most modern revolvers, the front sight and possibly the extractor shroud extension make the shape of the front part of the barrel far from round. So again in this case, the modification would have to be quite drastic.
A detailed explanation of attachment methods would greatly improve the article. ---Dagme (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Revolvers as a rule cannot be suppressed due to the cylinder. A few purpose built revolvers have been built to be suppressed but it is not the norm, so the front sight is not even an issue. On most pistols, a longer barrel with threads that extend beyond the slide are used. On rifles you have two basic methods: threaded and direct-connect. The threaded versions work like the previously mentioned pistol, screw the can onto the threads. Direct-connect attaches over an existing barrel device such as a flash suppressor or muzzle brake. There are either threads or grooves on these devices that allow quick attachment and detachment like the AAC Blackouts and SEI Vortex. A huge problem is source material. NFA items receive a fraction of the coverage that they need in the mainstream gun press, so the bulk of material is found on company websites, forums, blogs, etc. The socialists and hoplophobes are quick to tear that sort of material down.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attachment 

message: * Learning the science behind silencers on the range, is very thorough and in-depth article on this stuff as of 2014. Mvialt (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good source on the current state of technology and law 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Suppressor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418035925/http://campus.murraystate.edu:80/tsm/tsm118/Ch2/Ch2_7/Ch2_7.htm to http://campus.murraystate.edu/tsm/tsm118/Ch2/Ch2_7/Ch2_7.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a reference to the first use suppressor in a Patent. I checked it out and the patent is correct, but that can't be the earliest use. I don't want to delete the section, but it needs a fix.Jmackaerospace (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology Section OR 

message: The investigation  in Law and Order (television series) Season 15 Ep 13, "Ain't No Love" begins with recovery of a soda bottle (2 liter?) that had been used as an improvised silencer. (And the older, moustached detective talked about how hard it was to tape it on right when he experimented once.)   Presumably documentable.--Jerzy•t 08:09, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Improvised silencer might be a better term. Just saying.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Or should that be "improvised suppressor?" ;) But seriously, it is a common topic. There are references to homemade silencers and to things like pillows and potatoes used for the purpose, perhaps ineffectively. In order to protect the hearing of assassins and hunters, we should report this information. Felsic2 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Silencer is the correct technical and legal term. I own 15 of them and every Form 3 or Form 4 has "Box 4b" listing "SILENCER" as the type of firearm (yeah, they are considered firearms under US law and TSA agents will look through the tube to make sure it is not loaded when you fly with them). Suppressor is slang just like can, hush puppy, muffler, etc. This guy knows a thing or two about them, I've heard:--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice article, but I don't see anything about ghetto silencers or other improvised items. Felsic2 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your kind words, but I was referring to the term suppressor as being slang and silencer as the proper term.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a section with the sources I could find on the web. Felsic2 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ghetto silencer]] 

message: The following is unsourced; moving here, per WP:PRESERVE
;Europe
*In Austria, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited according to §17 of the Austrian Weapons Law.
*In the Czech Republic suppressors are, according to §4 of Weapons and Ammunition Law, considered an A-class weapon, which means a special exception is needed to possess them. This makes suppressors illegal for any practical purpose.
*In Germany suppressors are handled in the same way as firearms; if a firearm requires a specific permit, the corresponding suppressor requires the identical permit as well. For example, suppressors for freely available airguns are also freely available. Suppressors are currently not specified exactly by means of a certain minimum attenuating level in dB which separates them from improved flash hiders or advanced muzzle brakes. Firearm suppressors require a "legal need" to own them, just like the firearms they are designed for.
*In Hungary, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited for civilians.
*In Italy the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited except for military personnel (Law 110/75 Art. 2).
*In the Netherlands suppressors are only legal if used for airguns. All other civilian use and ownership is prohibited by law.
*In Norway, suppressors are not regulated.
* (alt) In Norway the sale of suppressors is not regulated in any way. And anyone can buy one over the counter. Some distributors take it upon themselves to check that the buyer has a Firearms Licence for a suitable weapon.
*In Poland, suppressors are not classified as "important weapon parts". Therefore, they are completely legal in all calibers, requiring no registration or permit. However the Polish Firearms and Ammunition Act (art.10, p. 5) states that firearms ownership approval cannot be issued for firearms equipped with silencer or adapted to be used with silencer.
*In Romania, the purchase or possession of suppressors is illegal for civilians. Only military and law enforcement personnel are authorized to use them.
*In the Russian Federation, ...(left sourced content) The law lacks any straight definition of what a "device for noiseless shooting" is, or what decibel level is considered to be "noiseless", therefore it is completely up to the expert investigating the device whether it would be considered a "device for noiseless shooting" or not. That concerns not only specifically designed sound suppressors, but such devices as muzzle brakes, compensators and flash suppressors. 
*In Turkey, civilian purchase, sale or possession of suppressors are strictly prohibited, with possible jail terms of up to 25 years if convicted. Suppressors can only be purchased by military personnel when approved by the officer in charge of the base armory. Individual law enforcement officers are not eligible to purchase or possess suppressors unless these are issued by a local agency, in which case these would be registered to the General Directorate of Security in Ankara.
*In Ukraine, suppressors are legal and not regulated.
;North America
*In Canada, ... (left sourced content) special licensing is required for businesses to import and sell suppressors, and they are typically only available to law enforcement, conservation agencies, and the military.
;Oceania
* In Australia, suppressors are prohibited for civilians unless authorised under a commissioner's permit.
*New Zealand has no restrictions on the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of suppressors.
-- Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced content in regulation 

message: This was added back in 2006. A Reddit thread casts doubt on it. I can't find anything about a Finnish phrase in the cited source. I can't find any good reference to it online or in print. I've tagged the line for verification. Felsic2 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not in Glen's book, but in a few pieces by Al Paulson.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I might have been able to find that myself if someone hadn't thoughtlessly changed "silencer" to "suppressor". I changed it back to the original. Felsic2 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, I missed that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finnish phrase.  

message: The OSS used a custom made High Standard in two calibers, .22 Short and .32 ACP.  The .22 short version could not be heard to fire from 15 feet away.  The guns had 12" barrels the last 6" of which were drilled and a silencer was built around them with baffles and I believe filled with steel wool.  .22 Long Rifle is supersonic and would NOT be used in a 12" barrel unless special sub sonic ammunition were used.
These guns are currently stored in a building on Route 32 in Ft. Meade across the street (approximately) from the NSA Cryptography museum.  A former CIA agent pointed that out to me.  Many of the specials weapons from WWII are stored there.
This is my understanding from conversations I have had with veterans who were there.Digitallymade (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on OSS use of the High Standard is incorrect. 

message: This statement:
Muzzle blast generated by discharge is directly proportional to the amount of propellent contained within the cartridge. Therefore, the greater the case capacity the larger muzzle blast and consequently a more efficient or larger system is required.
Is incomplete.  Muzzle blast is a direct result of the pressure of expansion gases as they exit the muzzle.  This is affected by the operating pressure of the cartridge, the speed of burning of the powder, and the length of the barrel.  For example... from the same barrel .22 Short or .22 CB or .22 BB produce very little explosive noise when that barrel is over 18" long.  .22 Long Rifle High Velocity produces substantial and hearing threatening noise in the SAME gun.  I've used .22 Short to shoot in my basement from a rifle.  In a semi-automatic rifle the short rounds will not self extract which is no problem for gallery shooting.
Digitallymade (talk) 14:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy i the Firearm Noise Anatomy 

message: I don't really see the point all the details about the use of sound moderator in the UK:  and . The terminology section is explaining how the word silencer is equivalent to car muffler in the UK, in the context of the claim that silencer only means "total silence" rather than merely sound reduction. It's nice to know that sometimes the term sound moderator has been used in the UK, but it's tangential to the subject  of that paragraph. The question we don't have any sources for is "how common is the term sound moderator in the UK"?<P>On the topic of whether and when silencers are allowed in shooting competitions, it's not relevant to the terminology section. We don't really have a section right now about the rules for using silencers in hunting sport or competitions other than government regulations. We could add a section on that topic.<P>It can't be emphasized enough that the whole "debate" over what to call a silencer was a manufactured controversy created by the US NRA as part of a political campaign kicked off in 2011 to loosen regulations in US. Prior to that, and outside of that context, there is no controversy over what to call a silencer. We shouldn't be writing this in a way that implies there was ever a problem with the word until the NRA made it a problem in 2011.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to what editor Dennis Bratland has noted regarding names (e.g., silencer, suppressor, moderator, etc.) for these devices, I'll add some more specifics. There probably is no "one" "correct" term. In the United States, the technical legal term in the law itself is silencer. See the definition in , and the definition provisions of the National Firearms Act at . I think this point was covered briefly earlier on this talk page, but if the citations to these statutes were listed, I missed them. Famspear (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just the legal term in the US. It's also the name bestowed on it by its inventor. And the name used by virtually all sources for 100 years. Even technical gun media preferred silencer until very recently. It's just false to imply there is any ambiguity here. It had always been called a silencer, and silencer is the correct term. It was until it became politicized and the need for a euphemism was identified for political reasons. Prior to that, suppressor was primarily used to distinguish a flash suppressor from a sound silencer. We can trace the history of this and see with our own eyes the deliberate, cynical Newspeak shift from silencer to suppressor by the gun media and the gun industry.<P>Consider the American Silencer Association. If silencer was "wrong", you'd think these would be the very ones who would know best that it is wrong. But their members included companies like SilencerCo, and their catalogs were filled with products they called silencers. Later, the NRA coordinated their PR efforts with the ASA, and they changed the S to Suppressor. But SilencerCo didn't change their name, and to this day many manufacturers have no problem with the word silencer.<P>The argument that silencer is incorrect because silencers don't make guns perfectly silent has been demonstrated to be false: that's not what silencer means. If you insist on interpreting the silencer to mean absolute quite, then suppressor has exactly the same problem. A literal-minded Drax the Destroyer would take suppress just as literally as silence. But in fact, words don't work that way. There's a reason the phrase "absolute silence" exists, because silence doesn't imply total quiet.<P>I'll just note that the propagandistic sources that insist silencer is "wrong" don't show their work. They don't cite any dictionaries or linguistic sources. They simply assert that silence means total quiet, ignoring the evidence that it does not. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound moderator terminology use in the UK 

message: The lede suggests that some jurisdictions require (mandate) a silencer be used.
No examples are given in the section on legality by jurisdiction.
Recommend either remove from lede, or add relevant example.
203.217.68.157 (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mandate" in lede, not in body 

message: Generally speaking nothing prohibited in Australia, one just need to obtain special permission or licence. Silencers could be own by people who need them for business use. For example if one have business and register it for pest shooting then (s)he can use silencer. However in reality it means that effectively silencers unreachable for general public.101.188.233.21 (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Australia, use and ownership of silencers is generally limited to government, security and law enforcement use only and thus prohibited for civilians. 

message: The subsonic ammunition article seems to imply that the only reason for using "subsonic ammunition" is to reduce the loudness of the shot.
This article generally talks about a variety of ways of reducing the loudness of a shot.
Therefore, I propose merging that article into the silencer (firearms)#Subsonic ammunition section of this article.
(If there were some *other* reason for using "subsonic ammunition", then it would make more sense for it to be an independent article).
--70.189.72.160 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Weak oppose, on the grounds that there is another difference, in that for a given amount of energy, the subsonic ammunition has more momentum, which means greater penetration and stopping power. This is because energy is proportional to mv2, while momentum is proportional to mv. Klbrain (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, given the uncontested objection (having waited for several months) and no support. Klbrain (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subsonic ammunition 

message: The current entry for first use cites a 1985 patent. This seems like original research to me, and I have marked it as such.
Additionally, I have found the following after only a cursory search, dated 1968:
* Military Potential Test of Noise Suppressor, Hel, M4, for M16a1 Rifle
So, not only is the current entry original research, it also seems to be incorrect. I am not suggesting replacing and re-dating it, but removing the claim entirely.
A reliable expert source which actually states the first use of the term for noise suppression would be required for it to be included in the article. (Hohum @) 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earliest use 

message: It has been legal to hunt with suppressors in Vermont for several years now. The state changed the law. The map on the Wikipedia page is 100% incorrect!  2601:19B:C703:1D40:9C77:B9B3:CF86:80E4 (talk) 00:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to provide a reliable source for this. (Hohum @) 02:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now legal to hunt with in Vermont