How do Silencers Work, and How Silent Do They Actually Make Guns?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 ต.ค. 2024
- Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com... for 10% off on your first purchase.
Love content? Check out Simon's other TH-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @xplrd
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
www.youtube.co...
This video is #sponsored by Squarespace.
Sources:
Maddox, Brandon, How Loud is a Gunshot? Gun DB Levels Compared, Silencer Central, September 11, 2019, www.silencerce...
Holmes, Jonathan, How Loud is a 50 BMG in Decibels? Cement Answers, cementanswers....
Maxim Silencer Company Photographs, Archival Collections at Hagley Museum & Library, 2015, findingaids.ha...
Dear, Ian, Sabotage and Subversion: The SOE and OSS at War, Cassell Military Paperbacks, 1996
Devaney, Tim, Gun Lobby Seeks to Calm Fears About Silencers, The Hill, May 29, 2017, thehill.com/bu...
The Rimfire Report: The Clandestine High Standard HDM, The Firearm Blog, June 1, 2020, www.thefirearm...
Silenced Sten Guns, Forgotten Weapons, Reddit, / silenced_sten_guns
Suciu, Peter, Meet the Russian Nagant Gun - the First Silenced Revolver, National Interest, June 29, 2020, nationalintere...
Occupational Noise Exposure, United States Department of Labor, www.osha.gov/n...
Rome, Robert, WWII Silent Killer Still Lives, Gung-Ho, June 1984, www.valkyriearm...
OTs-38 Silent/Sound Suppressed Revolver (Russia), Modern Firearms, modernfirearms...
Check out Squarespace: squarespace.com/BRAINFOOD for 10% off on your first purchase.
Hey Simon will you talk about more firearms?
You barely talked about one of the big purposes of suppressors.. reducing muzzle flash.
You're wrong the NFA requires a $200 tax stamp to buy a suppressor It's not illegal to have a suppressor You just have to pay an extortion fee 1st they are NOT Banned
140 decibel to 120 would be the difference between seeing the stones at Wimbledon stadium or a small bar 🍸 🤔
@@cjperry2731 he called it by name
I'm a 'gun guy', I have experience building and using suppressors (legally, with the associated tax stamps) and this is the first 'non-gun' channel video I've seen on the subject that correctly touches on all of the pertinent points. VERY well done!
I do wish he would have covered Neilson devices though. They're pretty neat and quite important to silencers functioning on most pistols.
The one aspect that could’ve been added regarding rifles is that there are rifle calibers designed to be subsonic for the purposes of suppression such as the Russian 9x39 and rifles designed specifically for those cartridges.
@@hobofactory And 300 Blackout.
@@thomasfoster2 I mean it’s not a big deal but it would be a bit like doing an overview of powered flight and not mentioning helicopters exist or something.
@@hobofactory I was actually thinking of the VAL and VSS, too. You're right man, that's probably the biggest blind spot of the video :)
My fiancé is a design engineer for a firearm manufacturer. He was one of the engineers that was part of the “suppressor project” for the company. I showed him this video with the expectation that he would pick it apart and tell me all the little things Simon got wrong. Instead, he said it was the most accurate, in-depth, unbiased video on suppressors he’d seen from a channel that wasn’t focused completely on firearms. Great video Simon!!
I appreciate seeing someone outside of the gun community helping to dispel the irrational fear of 80's and 90's hollywood notions of firearms. Keep up the good work!
As a gunsmith……. I’m particularly impressed with the amount of effort put into the accuracy of this video, even to mention the bag at revolver. Well done!
Although the absolute claim that "no gun can't be silenced to the 'thump' heard in movies" is wrong. Personally having fired a subsonic .22 from long a barrel rifle with a silencer, you would be hard pressed to hear anything similar to a gunshot. Shooting .22 Short from pistol with a silencer is so silent that the sound from the bullet hitting trees is louder than the report. 'Silentness' didn't improve anymore when we fired .22 Short from a long barrel rifle with a silencer. Very lethal but so little powder charge that it fails to cycle the gun (decreasing noise) and as the magazine is for .22 LR, bullets have to manually inserted.
With many downsides comes great stealth.. As with everything, it's all about tradeoffs, nothing is absolute. In this case: more damage, firerate and/or accuracy and you will get more noise, quaranteed. Vice versa applies equally.
I will grant that the movie-portrayed 9mm or larger caliber guns cannot be totally silent but the fact is that there definately is totally silent guns. The question is who wants to pay the tradeoffs for them.
I'd also like to point out that the decibel scale is an exponential one: An increase in 10db is a 10-fold increase in power. Reducing a gunshot by 50db is therefore a reduction in acoustic power in the order of 100,000. Suppressors then are actually highly effective from a physics perspective, but that's not how hearing works. It is however key to hearing loss, and as you mentioned, very important for indoor civilian use - not to remain unheard, but so you don't deafen you, your friends, bystanders or even the people you're trying to subdue.
Glad somebody caught this. -3dB is half power; as you pointed out, suppressors actually reduce noise substantially. Notwithstanding, this is a supper video on the topic.
Yes, was thinking the same, taking a 5.56 mm round from 165 to 132 is a decent achievement! Btw technically it’s a logarithmic scale, not exponential scale.
@@SpamSucker yeah it is an amazing technological achievement but 132 decibels is still loud as hell. The flight deck of a Nimitz Class carrier during flight operations averages somewhere between 130-140 decibels.
First off: I love your content and presentation. This applies to many of your videos, across multiple channels.
As a licensed firearms dealer, suppressor owner (5) and maker of ammunition (some tailored specifically for suppressed use) I clicked on this video expecting to lol at all the usual inaccurate nonsense usually spouted in similar titles.
I was pleased to be mistaken.
A few minor nit picks notwithstanding, I found your video (mostly) accurate, interesting, and entertaining.
He's good like that.
Should check out all his other channels, he´s the infotainment god that provides what TV failed to deliver.
Were you slightly irritated that he didn't mention the MP5SD when discussing integral silencers that bleed gas to render standard loaded 9mm sub-sonic? That was probably the only thing that disappointed me, along with the DeLisle and Welrod its probably the most relevant example...
*silencers...... you don't rename what Browning named them when he, not you, invented them.
@@bigguy7353 Maxim...I KNOW you ment Maxim...
Much respect for giving an accurate breakdown of suppressors. Hopefully enough ppl who aren't familiar w/ their actual real world effects will see this & understand they are not some magical silencer of assassin rounds seen in Hollywood but instead just dampen the noise a bit so you don't blow your ears out, especially indoors.
Do you happen like to hear the sound of your own voice? Speaking down at everyone as if your the only one who knows anything about the world, even though your talking about something most children already know about before they start school 😂 and with the exception of movies and games where they base things around entertainment more the reality, when and where do you see adults going on about magic silent suppressors?? Where and when do you witness people going on about their magic suppressors? You are either hanging out with kids who think their adults, or you just see your self as superior to everyone else to make such a stupid comment 😆🎣🎣🎣
@@MrEmueyes you are going to cringe so hard at yourself when you get older and grow out of your insecurity stage
@@MrEmueyes someone woke up and decided to be an asshole for no reason today. As for who is scared of the magic suppressors? The dumbasses in Congress. Suppressors should have been removed from the NFA decades ago but oh no they're scary and make ghost guns dead silent for crimes.
@@kameronjones7139
@@Fadaar well we better make a link for congress to see this guys comment and make the changes that are needed 😂🎣
Even with suppressors on the range, we use ear protection for centrefire calibres. Not worth the ear damage over time.
Yeah, if the projectile isn't decidedly subsonic, yer gonna get a heck of a crack. I still have a bunch of sub-sonic .22s (but no suppressed firearms) that are a lot "softer" sounding.
Who'd a thunk breaking the sound barrier is decidedly loud...
@@spacecadet0 - As someone who lives in a major US city with 5 military bases located within my county that I can readily think of and 3 of them having runways for air wings. I can say that when some hotdog breaks the sound barrier even people tens of miles away will hear that very loud BOOM depending on the weather conditions.
@@Winterydee he was being sarcastic
Yeah, but if you have to use a firearm to prevent a home invasion, you wont have time to grab your ear pro. Otherwise, between the flash and sound if you miss with your first shot with a non suppressed weapon, you will be too blind and deaf to line up a second shot effectively.
Hey man. As someone with extensive hands-on, professional experience with suppressors- this was a pretty decent video and I can tell you tried. I give it a 9.5/10 on correctness and can only dock points in a few nitpicky areas that really don’t matter. As always, solid presenter makes the video. Keep up the good work and if you are ever passing through Ohio, open invite to get on the real deal.
.45 ACP CANS SUCK!
And because of your comment I actually bothered watching it
My sentiments exactly.
Love the VSO.
It's cool seeing one of my favorite youtube channels commenting in the wild
US Marine here… this is amazingly well done and accurate. I only found one subtle mistake which I think is a slip of terms and doesn’t really matter much. A 99.9% accurate suppressor vid is rare… I’ve almost never seen a single video or paper that goes so far into detail and history for them. Even touching on suppressing fire being mitigated by using suppressors (ironic I know). Even on dedicated gun channels and pages I can only think of maybe one or two that are equal to this video. Bravo. Well done.
I live about 2000 feet from an outdoor gun range. I fully support suppressors. In fact the suppressors should have suppressors.
The ATF suppresses suppressors.
@@georgesakellaropoulos8162 lol right, prolly the best example of gun control measures being less than effective and/or downright stupid
@@jkfozul2316 Well, Congress wrote the law on silencers based on dime store detective novels and Hollywood, so it isn't surprising it's stupid on a technical level.
@The Elapid King poaching is technically a crime, so I'm not sure why you separate the two.
@@sbrazenor2
I just about to say that. Lmao
A small correction... The sale and/or possession of suppressors has never been banned in the US. The 1934 NFA made them a restricted item requiring special licensing and payment of a fee similar to machine guns. Unlike machine guns, the manufacture of suppressors has never been banned. If you aren't a criminal or otherwise prohibited by law, it's perfectly legal to buy or make a suppressor after you pay the $200 fee and wait for approval from the ATF. However, like almost everything in the US, the states have individual laws on the subject and some jurisdictions don't permit citizens to own suppressors.
The inclusion of suppressors in the NFA was based entirely upon hysteria and not reality. There's no evidence that suppressors are or ever have been used to any significant degree in crime. I'm aware of only one instance in which a shooter used a suppressor and it didn't keep anyone from immediately identifying the shots. The only noticeable changes that would result from removing the restriction on suppressors are that people would be less likely to lose their hearing and at a distance you'd be less likely to hear the shots of hunters.
some states do not allow regular civs to have silencers.
Silencers are legal, no registration in the UK.
Production of select fire weapons has been severly restricted by the 1986 Hughes Amendment. They can still be manufactured and sold to people were specific stamp taxes (known as Special Occupation Taxpayer or SOT). People were certain SOTs can manufacture and sell select fire weapons. You can get a SOT once you have a FFL lot of hoops but worth it once complete.
@@pbandj37 if you get an FFL you're now on a list.
@@jim99west46 Need to hold variation for the silencer if fitted to a firearm held on FAC.
As someone who is permanently annoyed with silencers depiction, I've gotta say that this is one of best most thorough videos I've ever seen on this subject. Simon's other videos on guns have also been very accurate.
I do wish he would have covered Neilson devices though. They're pretty neat and quite important to silencers functioning on most pistols.
it's not a silencer,.it is a suppressor.. re-re
@@dr.decker3623 thats not what my federal government paperwork calls mine. The ATF form 5320.4 clearly calls it a silencer, and the inventor also named it Silencer.
@@dr.decker3623 it’s idiots like this why video trolls like Simon have a career.
@@dr.decker3623 The first recognized commercial suppressor was called the Maxim Silencer by the Maxim Silencer Company in 1902, with suppressor coming much later. Sociopolitical baggage and misleading name aside, silencer is not an incorrect term.
As someone who uses suppressors on all of my range guns, I really appreciate the accurate information here. 99% of “silencer” videos are hack garbage-this is great! Well done!
Then why use the PC name? Be a man and call it a silencer as Maxim intended. Do you call the pipe with baffle attached to your vehicle a engine suppressor? No. The same guy invented both so a linear conclusion can be drawn.
@@Scupplin because every person I've seen/talked to who actually uses them doesn't call them silencers? And your "linear conclusion" is absurdly stupid. The same guy invented them, so we should call them the same thing?
I assume you want us to call suppressors mufflers then?
@@angussiegloff5238 do the PC thang, bro. Just remember, Hiram Percy Maxim called his invention a silencer. The term suppressor is used to soften silencer into a more palatable word for the left's ultrasensitivity to everything firearm related.
No amount of appeasement will satisfy their desire for unarmed subjects to abuse and murder as they wish. I dare not drop my attention from them, let alone drop to my knee and change words for their temporary approval. Stop compromising with your enemy, it's a sure sign of weakness.
@@Scupplin Suppressor is a more accurate term which is why it has been adopted. Technically speaking you should only call a suppressor a silencer if its one made by the maxim company as its a brands model name. Also am I in trouble for calling the muffler on my car a muffler as maxim originally invented that as well calling it a silencer. Also its not changing words any way as (and I know this will blow your simple mind) there can be more than one word to describe something.
I find it interesting that in many countries with exceedingly restrictive firearms laws encourage silencer use for safety and public health/nuisance reasons.
While the "home of the free" regulates these devices so stringently as to make them (effectively) minimally available because the are scary in movies.
Australia
It's literally a gun muffler, and they should be available over the counter to literally anyone just like any other accessory.
as they are in most places of the world.
Yeah I can buy one freely in shops and online, easy. Just can't buy the gun to go with it, thank god.
@@donaldasayers
Well that makes buying a suppressor rather pointless.
@@donaldasayers you would still have to go through the exact same background check as if you were buying a firearm. and then wait for nearly a year to wait for the government to approve your application. It is much easier to buy a (scary) gun than a silencer.
Easiest and cheapest is to get a solvent trap, which are relatively inexpensive, then submit your ATF Form 1 and $200. Once approved, you can drill it out. Last time I checked it took about a month.
I have a few suppressors. The only one I shoot without hearing protection is a .22. Heck, if guns were invented today OSHA would require all firearms to come with built in suppressors.
OSHA only applies to workplace standards not personal personal products or practices....if you want it's perfectly legal to climb up a tree in your underwear and use an angle grinder to trim limbs
@@listenhere1623 OMFG Debbie downer you get the damn point.
@@listenhere1623 fun fact, there are professions that involve shooting firearms....
@@matthewmyers7440 fun fact there are steel toe boots, ear protection, gloves etc that aren't osha approved and are for sell to the civilian market.
@@listenhere1623 how is that at all related? People drink water at the work place and that’s not OSHA approved. See how stupid that argument is?
Thanks for an honest evaluation of this topic. Many leaders in government learned everything they know on this topic from movies. Gun control advocates often paint a picture of criminals assassinating at will from the shadows. In truth, suppressors only moderately reduce the sound to the shooter. Down range from the shooter they are still quite loud and shooting from concealment without being heard is impossible.
*silencers..... stop renaming what you didn't invent.
they are indeed quite useful for hunting or at the range. not to train assassins, but to protect the heating of lawful citizens that like to shoot as a hobby. one could market suppressors as a "attachment to protect the health of gun owners"
@@bigguy7353 it's supressor
@@bigguy7353 you should take your own advice.
@@kingjellybean9795 It's whatever you want.
I am absolutely impressed by how accurate and thorough this video was! I'm very well familiar with firearms, suppressors, and all of their myriad real-world uses. This is one of the only videos I've seen on TH-cam that didn't leave me shaking my head. This was really very good work! I don't have anything I really want to critique about it, but I would like to include some additional information in case anybody with the interest to read it comes across my comment!
Oh, and thank you so much for not discussing the trend of using oil filters as suppressors. Yes, sure, it can work a little, for a bit. Good luck getting a proper sight picture, though.
The suppressed cartridges invented by the Russians were also used in a knife. The idea, I suppose, being that if a soldier was attempting to neutralize a sentry with the knife, but their target turned around, they could then dispatch them with a silent bullet, instead. No idea how well this worked in practice. Another interesting note about those cartridges, and the ridiculousness of our ATF over here in America, is that here, every round would have to be registered as its own suppressor. And to legally own them as a civilian, you would have to pay a $200 tax on every single cartridge.
The MP5SD is a sub-machine gun that I really expected to be in this video! It wasn't really needed to explain the potential of an integral suppressor on a firearm, though, since there were other adequate examples. I will say this, though. That particular weapon was known to produce such a quiet report that the cycling of its mechanical components was noticeably louder than the shot itself. Also, while it did still make a sound, it wasn't easily recognized as a gunshot, even at relatively close ranges. Both of these things were discussed in the video regarding other weapons, but hey, if you're new to the subject, and interested in it, the MP5SD is definitely an icon of the suppressed tactical firearm world.
Finally... there is even a suppressor out there that fits the minigun. Yeah. The rotating-barrel, ridiculously high rate-of-fire minigun. No idea how well it works, because I can't afford to own either!
If you actually read all of this, you're awesome. Here's another bit of suppressor-related trivia for ya, since you're so dang dedicated to the subject! Suppressors tend to push a lot of combustion gases back into the barrel of a firearms. In semi-autos, this can mean increased fouling, increased operating forces within the action, and, maybe happily, in a full-auto it usually causes an increase in the rate-of-fire. This also leads to the user of said firearm breathing in more toxic substances, like lead particles, so suppressors as a means of keeping the shooter healthy aren't exactly perfect!
I used Suppressers in Afghanistan on my Sniper rifle purely to hide the location i was firing from as it eliminated the muzzle flash and by making the weapon retort quieter it made it almost impossible to tell which direction the shot was from. it worked very well in built up areas as we could be on a rooftop and the sound would not echo the same as an unsuppressed weapon.
This is why silencers are going to be part of the standard kit in the new 6.8 rifles the army is replacing the all the 5.56 platforms with. Keeps guys alive and unspotted for much longer in a firefight instead of announcing your presence, your exact location, your date of birth, and the name of your dog.
It's also the reason that Canadian Government gave when there was a petition to allow them plus as far as the liberal party is concerned guns are bad
I own suppressors for hunting. The movie industry is why i have to pay the Gov $200 to have one to save my ears. In England, where they have the most strict gun laws, they are sold over the counter and its rude not to use one for hunting. In America, the gov gets rich off of tax stamps for each one.
I can assure anyone its still loud…. like 120-ish decibles… just enough where my hearing is not permanently damaged. The sonic boom can never be suppressed and will always crack loud like a firecracker.
If England sells them over the counter, you know its all movie hype.
The US gov makes too much money on them to take them off the NFA list.
It's true, I'm a competitive rifle shooter in England and suppressors are much easier to buy than in the USA.
Meanwhile, I can't buy a .22lr pistol unless the barrel is at least 12" long.
This world is weird.
Although I wouldn't say we have the most strict gun laws. Not by a mile, most people are just not very informed on UK gun laws. Japan certainly does. Theirs are extremely strict.
Or just repeal the whole NFA
The government doesn't get rich off of them anymore. The reason it's $200 is because when the law was made, $200 was about the cost of a vehicle. It was made intentionally impossible to acquire a suppressor and the $200 price has just not changed for about a century.
It costs that because they tried to (and succeeded in) taking your rights.
@@joelhall5124 Yup. One of my liberal Facebook friends posted this link on Facebook that begins, "In Japan you have the right to own a gun, here is how you do it" and proceeds to dissect what is possibly the strictest process in the world to own and enjoy a firearm. "When it's that restricted" I thought to myself, "It's definitely not a right."
I repair guns. One I cleaned was an integrally suppressed semiautomatic rifle. A manufactured rifle using .45 ACP. The jammed carbon residue made it as loud as a regular gun. After cleaning and replacing the material inside, a test shot proved to be the level of a pair of hands making a single loud clapping sound. I could hear the brass hit the ground. The owner had the appropriate paperwork.
the first shot will be louder than every subsequent shot,.. you should have shot it a few more times,.. i doubt you even touch guns
@@dr.decker3623 Depends on the suppressor, host and atmospheric conditions if 1st round pop occurs.
The only part he really missed was that one of the primary methods to drop rifle calibers into the subsonic realm is to increase the mass of the projectile(measured in grains). Rounds like 300 AAC Blackout have projectile weights ranging from around 120gr to about 220gr. The lighter supersonic rounds carry more energy because of the squared relationship of velocity and kinetic energy but they produce a very loud supersonic crack even when suppressed. The lower velocity 220gr still carry a fair amount of energy down range but sacrifice the range and energy of their lighter counter parts. This can also be balanced by switching to even larger rounds like the 9x39 and the 458 socom which can sling significantly heavier projectiles down range and carry more energy while still being below the speed of sound.
Otherwise, he pretty much nailed it. Good on ya Simon.
Is there such a thing as a "one size fits all" barrel twist rate that can stabilize such a wide range of bullet weights?
That works for pistol calibers too. Standard 9mm target rounds are 115 grains and NATO military standard 9mm rounds are 124 grains, both are supersonic. Most 147 grain and heavier 9mm cartridges however are subsonic. Most standard self defense loadings and those used by US law enforcement are 147 grain.
147 grain federal HST here
In addition to less propellent, the weight of the bullet itself can be increased in order to reduce the velocity to less than the speed of sound. That is, it takes longer to push a heavier object up to a greater speed. A shorter barrel will also help, as bullet velocity increases in longer barrels (to a certain length, based on the ammo) as the pressure is allowed to affect it for a longer period of time. So, less propellent, heavier bullets, and shorter barrels can all help us remove that crack of the bullet.
Its not always less propellant. Sometimes it is a different powder used for subsonic rounds.
Very true. Propellant change in type or ammount is a good option as well. However i find that semi auto firearms benifit from heavier projectiles as they can still cycle reliabily
@@lennyinne
It can sometimes be very dangerous to just reduce the load of the same propellant to achieve sub sonic bullet speed.
Very often you need to change the propellant to make a safe sub sonic load.
Very often increasing the bullet weight is very good when making a sub sonic load.
Often it can make it easier to achieve the sub sonic speed you want, but much more important, you get more kinetic energy that will result in better penetration and damage to vital organs.
When I was more into hunting in my youth, I really wanted a suppressor to protect the hearing of our gun dogs. To me, that is the biggest benefit of hunters using them. But of course, Hollywood is reality to some people; particularly to legislators who aren't up to speed on what they are legislating.
It also makes shooting firearms much less disturbing/annoying to the neighbors.
@@danielfredrikson3054 I grew up rural. When I was really into hunting and shooting, we didn't have neighbors. I miss that part of rural living. :)
@@justinkey4895 Yea - that makes things more convenient.
Yeah, I wish we could own them up in Canada for this reason alone. I bought a pair of mutt muffs for my pointer but I gotta be on her all the time so she doesn't take them off. FAR easier to keep a suppressor on the firearm then it is to keep the ear muffs on the dog.
I'm very impressed. Well done, I did not expect this amount of accuracy from a non-firearms channel. Keep up the good work.
As an American I very much appreciate your unbiased presentation of the facts
What does as an American mean in your point? (I'm not an American)
@@Mandolatron
Our media is extensively partisan.
As an American I accept without question that what you say is fact because you sound British.
@@Mandolatron ** certain topics are extremely split between respective parties. With guns being one of the big ones.
As an American, you’re watching the wrong media.
I never thought the .22lr was that loud. But that would explain my hearing loss. I spent a lot of time in the woods with my bolt action .22lr growing up in rural Indiana.
Bolt actions are noticeably quieter than semi autos. Use 22 shorts all day long with no hearing protection.
@@harrkev My buddy has a integrally suppressed 10-22 and you can shoot that all day without hearing protection. I was actually surprised at how quiet it was. We still wear hearing protection when firing it either way.
@@harrkev the "action" of a firearm makes no discernable difference in sound. Maybe the fact that you're not cracking off rounds as quickly, but the sound of a round is determined by its "load", not the platform itself.
Same but in Arkansas
.22 is weird. Something about the pitch makes it seem quieter than it is. I have a suppressor that I use mostly on a .22 Ruger Charger and unless you use subsonic ammo the difference between suppressed and not suppressed is... well it's definitely noticeable, but I wouldn't say dramatic. But the subsonic ammo sounds like a pellet gun, especially if you hold the action closed with your off hand (or use some kind of bolt locking device).
I like the people arguing about what they’re called. Simple fact, when silencer is on the patent it’s called a silencer not a suppressor. You can call them quieters or whatever you want but that doesn’t change what the patent says or even what the inventor called it.
The patent for the thing you probably know as a "band aid" is titled "surgical dressing". Patents aren't the final word on what things are called (not that youtube comments are any higher on the list).
In Australia we just get to call them illegal sadly.
@@tallskinnygeek atf refers to them as silencers.
As a gun collector with many suppressors/silencers (UK based) I was avoiding this video thinking that probable content inaccuracies would irritate me (I watch most of your other videos and enjoy them) BUT I was very pleasantly surprised at the accuracy of the content and how well researched it was! Also the range of coverage is excellent, including the wipe, revolver, integrated systems was way beyond my expectations of a 'mainstream' channel; well done!
Thank you for reaching nearly 3 million ppl with this information. Love the channels Simon!
One correction - the NFA didn't *ban* silencers in the US. It bans the possession of one that isn't properly registered to the lawful owner and hasn't had the proper taxes paid (which were set in 1934 as roughly equivalent to half the cost of a new automobile, specifically to discourage use).
Really that's what a ban means in terms of guns. Really nothing is banned if you have correct licences.
For example did you know that following the same rules you can own just about any type of gun in the UK. But its commonly thought that anything more than shotguns or bolt action hunting rifles are banned in the UK. Basically when you need anything more than the basic licence it's seen as banned to the general public.
Also fun fact in the UK silencers are not banned as is often actually recommended if you are going to get a rifle licence as they are very easy to get.
I don't actually personally know anyone that has guns who does not own one.
It's more of a poor tax than an actual ban.
@@TheWeeJet in Europe, corking your guns is considered etiquette for public shooting
@@TheWeeJet do you live in the UK? That's very interesting to me. I wish they were easier to get here. I dont mind paying for it but I do mind waiting a year to get what I bought
@@TheWeeJet A ban that exempts people.who manage to get licenses for professional use (for example, in the US, licensed manufacturers of machineguns, who are permitted to make new MGs for police, the US military, and US State Department approved exports; note they don't have to have an actual sales contract to build guns, which is where "post-May dealer samples" come.into play...) is not at all the same as a system where any law abiding adult citizen can have something, provided they fill out the paperwork and pay a tax or fee.
Silencers (like "pre-May 1986" transferrable machineguns) are not banned by the federal government, just highly regulated. ANY law abiding citizen age 21 or older who is permitted to possess even the least scary type of gun (say, a single shot .22 rifle or .410 shotgun) can lawfully buy a silencer (note, their state of residence may absolutely ban them, but that's a different issue) - it's just a lot of paperwork, a one time $200 tax per silencer "transfer", and a wait of many months. The federal government *literally* has zero discretion to disapprove the transfer, provided the buyer doesn't have a statutory disqualifying factor (criminal record, etc.) *But*, a silencer that was *imported* after 1968, or a machinegun that was imported after 1968 or manufactured domestically after May 1986, that private citizen is legally prohibited from ever owning - the only route for anyone except a government agency to legally possess one is if they are licensed to work in the business of silencers and machineguns - and those licenses are only authorized for you if you are actually conducting the business of making or selling thise devices (there isn't even a "theatrical" license like many countries have for prop houses - every Hollywood prop house that has a license of this type is actually a licensed manufacturer, seller, or importer, who *must* do business in that field to keep their license.) Thus, "post-1968" imported NFA items (silencers, MGs, "sawed off" rifles and shotguns, "destructive devices" like cannons, etc.) And "post-May 1986" MGs are *banned* - the only private citizens allowed to own them are those who have government licenses to conduct business in those items.
There is a "loophole" for "post-1968", but not "post-May" MGs, "dealer samples" for the licensed NFA businessmen *if* they were a "sole proprietor" business (not a corporation or a partnership) where they can keep possession of the dealer samples that aren't "post-May" MGs when they go out of business.
I live in the US and own a couple of suppressors. I also reload my own ammunition for several of the calibers I shoot through them. Based on my experience this is an incredibly accurate and well researched video. Thanks for sharing!
This is why I regularly watch all of Simon's content, he didnt miss one thing and hit every point accurately and well researched. He even mentioned the extremely unnecessarily and complicated process the ATF makes us go through to not lose our hearing. Hands down one of my favorite creators of all time.
Considering ear defence is required from 85db it doesn't really protect your hearing much....
As an owner of a M1895 Nagant from 1932, I chuckled at how Simon read it out as "M-1-8-9-5", when it's simply short for "Model of 1895", the year it was introduced into service.
Silencers need to be unregulated. They do a great job helping with hearing protection.
We don't outlaw mufflers and they obviously don't silence engine combustion
Repeal the NFA
@@neonwhitea.1548 💯
That said, I would love a silencer for my 1911. .45acp is almost always subsonic. I'm even looking to build my AR pistol a .45acp upper with an 8" berrel.
I agree that they should be deregulated but you know why they’re ARE regulated right? Because they make it decidedly easier to kill someone and slip away. Especially if they use .22 subsonic rounds which actually are almost silent.
This is actually false, big time false, and not the reason silencers are hard to get either
Fun fact on shotgun silencers - a huge proportion of the development of them has been for British shooters. This is because the UK (like several other European countries) recognizes that suppressors are not "assassination tools", and are quite useful for civilian shooters to protect their hearing and be less of a nuisance to the neighbors.
Are you suggesting that the US should adopt the common-sense gun laws found across Europe?
America's politicians, swayed by the movies assumes too much and thinks it makes bullets sound like beebee guns. We live in stupid times.
@@LouSpowells lol so we just wouldn't have guns.
@@Fractal_blip europe is diverse, a few nations do infact push gun control but also: maintenance, safe handling and even enforcement. By that I mean everyone has a gun and knows how to use one.
I think that is one of the northern countries like sweden or norway...dont exactly remember
@@InvaderTak176 I don't know what to say except it won't happen lol.
Define irony: The fact that in many countries in Europe hunting requires suppressed firearms where in the US its illegal...
Last I knew you could only hunt with suppressors in 30 states, and 11 ban them outright...
It’s legal to hunt with a suppressor in 40 US states.
It’s just a ROYAL pain to get one.
@managerial conclusions right, right. As long as it's just income discrimination it's all fine. Not arguing your comment, just making a funny, but accurate, observation.
Not illegal.....but I *am* on my 14th month right now waiting on the ATF to finish what they started.
@@danielboggan2479 Its a pain, unless you have a lot of money.
Inalienable rights behind a paywall .. one word. Infringement
Excellent work and very eloquently presented. As someone who owns suppressors, and have used recreational firearms suppressed, you’ve really done a thorough job researching this topic, especially for a “non-gun TH-cam channel”
Thank you!
Everyone have a great new year!
Nicely done and quite accurate.
It would make more sense to require guns to be suppressed than to regulate suppressors nearly out of existence, especially considering a real criminal could make one for under $10 out of ordinary stuff from the hardware store with no special skills.
I was about to say maybe not under $10, but if you factor in the 5 finger discount, you might actually get it under $10.
You can definitely make one for less than $10 if you have even moderate fabrication skills.
@@chasebarber6154 and you can make guns as well.
Allegedly... ALLEGEDLY You need an old non-LED maglite body, some automotive engine freeze plugs, a drill press, a mallet, a 1" deep well socket w/ extension and a cheap adapter purchased from the biggest online retailer on earth if you have no machining skills or tools. However, with the ATF Form 4 now being completely online including payment portal approval turnaround is supposed to drop to 90 days this year and 30 days by next year so just pay the tax stamp. $200 is less than an hour of a lawyers time.
So you’ve never met an anti-gun lunatics Making sense vs feeling virtuous is the choice and you know how sweet that feeling you get making sure you show everyone how virtuous you are is.
The detail is this video is impeccable...at first I was gonna be like "Oh it's another guy claiming to know about cans"...but when he brought up the m1895, my jaw dropped that he dripped that pistol in there...I was sold
Except for that fact that he states suppressors are illegal in the USA
@@FishFind3000 regular sale is banned. you have to pay a tax and fill out paperwork and live in a state that follows the nfa laws.
I do have a m1895 Nagant with an attached can. It sounds like a bb gun and people inside their houses wouldn't hear it nor can gunshot detection systems pick it up.
@@FishFind3000 they are deems to be illegal by default with an exemption made if you go through a very specific infringin....I mean regulatory process
I am extremely impressed with the level of detail in this video. You did a ton of research on the topic and it shows. So much excellent information in a very short video.
I do wish he would have covered Neilson devices though. They're pretty neat and quite important to silencers functioning on most pistols.
Remember: the decibel scale is logarithmic. A 30dB reduction is 1/1000 the intensity.
Suppressed rifle calibres, like the .300 Blackout, operate on the principle of using a very heavy-for calibre bullet/projectile, with a very fast twist to stabilize it, so that sonically it will leave the muzzle below the speed of sound, yet carry enough inertia to damage it's target, and be ballistically aerodynamic to have practical useful range. In the case of the .300 Blackout, they use a 220 grain or heavier bullet, with a phenomenal ballistic coefficient ( aerodynamic profile, to keep the bullet speed as high as possible over the distance of it's flight to target) and a rifling twist rate of 1 turn in 7 inches, to spin the long bullet fast enough to keep it flying true. The subsonic round then benefits immensely from the suppressor at that point.
Amen to above. Sig-high! :) excellent accurate description above.
Wow, I'm so impressed with this channel. Between this and the "Assault Weapon" video you guys show real knowledge of firearms. Thank you.
As a combat veteran, my hearing loss comes mostly from the times I would be too focused on the tower and their commands. By the time it was, “firers watch your lanes”, I would realize I hadn’t put in my ear pro yet. I was shooting the first few targets while actively removing my ear pro from its case and applying it. It’s not the shooters near you making much noise, it’s the weapon you are firing. Of course mounted courses and things like the M240B are much different, not to mention the M2. Being an assistant gunner to a 240 and realizing your ear pro isn’t in is interesting. I’m sorry, what did you say?
I had a guy next to me with a 7.5" AR with a massive muzzle brake make my ear ring for a couple weeks and I was wearing ear plugs more than 6 feet away.
Those things just plain require doubling up on the ear protection.
@@MrS22222 Same here. At a MG shoot in NH we had a M2 .50 cal on the line that I thought was loud, but the guy next to me was worse. He was firing his pet HK53 (chopped down HK33 in 5.56 with 8.3" barrel), and despite my ear muffs, the concussion force coming from his muzzle gave me a headache and made me somewhat queasy.
@@Paladin1873 that's the pressure on the inner ear that makes you queasy, I felt the same thing.
Everything I heard was digitized for a couple days after though, it was a bizarre robot-like distortion.
@@MrS22222 Yes, it's the same effect one gets from motion sickness.
WHAT
I remember a Doc Savage book where the Doc and his team were investigating an apparently totally silent machine gun, which turned out to be a portable electromagnetic mass driver.
Must have been a EMD from the future because they still make one heck of a crack when they throw a metal spike or slug down wind.
@@jayt.640 Yeah, I know, but the Doc Savage books were never known for their scientific accuracy.
anything supersonic goes bang
Unless this was a very heavy subsonic projectile (limited range and accuracy), its not going to work. Those rail guns are really loud for example.
Forgot to talk about the infamous Mac-10 demonstration. And, from what I have heard, you can, also, use the weight of the projectile to make it go slower and thus staop it from going past the speed of sound.
I use mine when shooting indoors at ranges, and even then, it makes it so I only have to wear one set of hearing protection while shooting. Definitely not the scary silent things they put in movies.
And yet... Baldwin still claims that he thought the cinematographer had "fainted"...
The _fourth_ way of slowing down the bullet, whilst keeping the energy similar, is to make the projectile much, much heavier. We used "Sniper Sub-Sonic" .22 cartridges on a suppressed rifle. The cartridge was about 2/3 bullet! The action was the loudest thing, no hearing protection required. Edit: it has an integrated suppressor barrel.
Be careful with those, we’ve blown up 3 22’s with them. Sent the extractor on an old Browning challenger and 10/22 into low earth orbit and toasted a Glock 22 slide. Pulled a few bullets and they were way way over primed as well as having almost as much powder as a standard 22.
9x39... why use anything else...?
@@georgekaradov1274 Probably because that cartridge is going to go the way of the Dodo once the russian ammo import ban goes into full effect.
@@carbon8ed I do not see the Russian army abandoning it any time soon. And people realy love it. Because it realy works.
@@georgekaradov1274 Yeah, I know it's good. It's probably the best dedicated suppressed rifle cartridge. That doesn't change the fact that here in America it's going to become unobtanium seeing as Russia is the only country it gets imported from. You asked why anyone would use anything else and I answered your question.
As a working gunsmith Im very impressed with your wrighters research. This was spot on!
An excellently thorough examination. Well worth the watch.
Once again, nailed it. Thank you for your apolitical and informative video on firearms and firearm accessories. Excellent work and well done. Happy New Year!
Great! It'll be nice to have some of the myths dispelled and maybe I'll be allowed to protect my hearing like anyone else producing this level of noise is legally required to...
Except he is wrong so many times during this video it is difficult to keep track of his inaccuracies. Nearly everything he says is partially or completely wrong.
I assume you're in USA?
It's so ironic that it's far easier to buy suppressors here in the UK, even with our ridiculous firearms rules
@@warjunky14 May I ask what are the inaccuracies?
@@joelhall5124 Since the people making our rules have zero clue what they are talking about beyond what some idiot in Hollywood who also has zero clue what they are talking about, it doesn't seem likely any common sense will be forthcoming here in the good ole USA.
@@idlehands1864 common sense is extremely rare among all western law makers, sadly.
Excellent information and presentation as usual, I would like to correct one point thou, wipes do not slow down the bullet in any significant way, they are usually some kind of rubber and their purpose is to seal up the chambers making the suppressor more efficient at the expensive of accuracy. The accuracy degradation plus the ATF ruling that each "wipe" is a suppressor in itself requiring either another tax stamp and 200 dollars for each replacement or requiring going back to a suppressor manufacturer for replacement is why they are not popular in the US.
Correction on your correction.
The ATF doesn't require a $200 tax for each wipe and a wipe isnt considered a suppressor itself. The ATF ruled that a wipe is a suppressor part and requires a manufacturer to replace the wipe.
Having extra suppressor parts laying around is a big no-no and can catch you a felony.
@@alexspencer8904 You are agreeing with me then, as I said of course if you are a licensed suppressor manufacturer you can replace parts which a wipe is without another 200 dollar stamp, but if you as the individual owner want to replace a wipe (or a baffle) on the suppressor you own then you would have to buy the 200 dollar stamp to purchase the suppressor part. The only legal way to avoid the second stamp is to send it to a suppressor manufacturer who of course is licensed to do so. I think you didn't read what I wrote.
@@CCW1911 no you don't need to pay $200 to replace the suppressor part...
You can't repair or replace the part. It needs to be sent to a manufacturer.
@@alexspencer8904 Exactly what I said you don't have to pay 200 you have to have the manufacturer do it to avoid paying the 200, or if they did sell you a wipe being a suppressor part it would have to have a stamp, easy to understand. Same reason oil filter suppressors are not popular, once the original oil filter is used up it's back to the manufacturer for replacement you can't legally just buy a oil filter at the auto parts store and replace it yourself, the only way you could do it yourself would be to pay the 200 bucks for another stamp for another serialized filter which I doubt any dealers would do. Wipes baffles suppressor parts are under the same regulations as suppressors themselves as far as the ATF regulates them, very simple for most people to understand.
@@CCW1911 You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. I make suppressors. You licence the product. You can change baffles, wipes, anything you want, as long as the serialized part (usually the tube) doesn't change caliber or designation. How do you think .22 suppressors work? They are designed to be taken apart and cleaned due to the nastiness of the cartridge. A wipe is 1000% not or has ever been considered an NFA item.
Thank You for taking the BS out of this subject. Well done!! :-)
Pardon ?
Wonderfully fast-paced and informative.
Be aware that silencers are more correctly called "silencers". "Suppressor" is a much newer term that's slightly less accurate. "Sound suppressor" literally means "silencer". It does not mean "muffler". And "suppressor" doesn't intrinsically mean "sound suppressor" (we also have flash suppressors), so "silencer" is more accurate to someone who isn't aware the unqualified "suppressor" is assumed to be suppressing sound.
Someone who was bad at vocabulary (and using a dictionary) got confused and bullied a bunch of people into thinking that "suppress" means "partially silence", which it doesn't. To suppress something is to remove it from perception. To suppress sound is to remove the sound from perception, also known as silencing.
When you suppress a rebellion, you don't remove half the rebels and leave the other half fighting in the streets. When you suppress the truth, you don't execute half the dissident reporters and leave the other half around. Etc.
It's like people who think "accident" means "couldn't be prevented", when it has actually meant, for like 600 years, "something bad that happened" and, for like 100 years, "not on purpose". And, oh, how they'll "correct" you when you use the term correctly.
You guys did a really good job researching this topic, especially considering this isn’t a firearms channel.
Their standard quality work.
Excellent observation. Because this topic is so familiar I can appreciate him as a researcher and host significantly more - as long as he is doing this well, I’m likely getting great info on all other subject matter.
Often I find firearms channels to be wrong, as they are not very scientifically oriented.
While there may be great debate among gun people here in the US over 'suppressor' or 'silencer;' It is actually 'silencer.' Hiram Maxim's original patent called it a silencer, he even trademarked the name 'Maxim Silencer' for his product.
I always called them silencers but I had friends in a gun shop. They had to call them suppressors then Moderaters Then everything was banned.
I have Form 3's with both on them.
I have Form 3's with both on them.
The ATF has zero humor in anyone caught attempting to “silence” or “suppress “ ANY firearm without the required stamps and taxes paid first as well as the obligatory trust set up in place as well. 2 liter Mountain Dew bottles have made felons out of more than 1 person in the United States.
I came here as an owner of multiple suppressors expecting to be disappointed. I was not. Very well done. The only thing I'd note is that the 300 Blackout subsonic round is a very popular rifle cartridge (Basically a .308 mashed into a 5.56 case which has been cut down to around 1.2" AOL and pressed to accommodate the new projectile). Excellent work on the video!
One thing you got wrong is special forces are not the only units using suppressors. actually the United states Marine Corps is adopting suppressors for all of their infantry, and I think combat engineers but I’m not 100 percent sure about that. Also another way to subsonic a bullet is by making it very heavy. Thank you for the video I thought it was very interesting and most of it was very accurate!
Saw Simeon posting something about guns. Thats an instant watch now!
Thank you for presenting your facts in an unbiased way, Simon. Guns and accesories can be a polarizing subject matter, but the basic facts are apolitical.
Shut up. With an assault silencer you can shoot a whole crowd of people with nobody noticing
@@buyahondasupercub Says someone who has never fired a gun before.
@@buyahondasupercub you trolling right?
@@badluck5647 well you could assuming you were using the appropriate gun with the appropriate ammo
@@buyahondasupercub Whoa! Watch out, gents! There's apparently assault silencers now! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
This is a great video for basic facts on suppressors for noise reductions. One important thing about suppressors is a large reduction of muzzle flash.
I own three suppressors for various calibers. I bought my first one when I was building an AR15 chambered in 300blk. This particular caliber was designed to be able to be powder loaded for subsonic velocities while still cycling the action on semi and full auto firearms. I have an adjustable gas block and silent capture spring which have allowed me to make my firearm very quiet. Yes there is noise but it doesn’t sound like a gun shot.
I like my suppressors because of the decrease in noise pollution as well as being another step of hearing protection. When hunting, you don’t wear hearing protection so you can hear what’s going on around you whether that is nature or other hunters. Not having my ears ringing after a shot is awesome.
Do this is a phenomenal video for a non firearms specific channel.
People who are not firearms enthusiasts, this guy is giving it to you straight.
Thank you for all the accurate research. One of the reasons I love this channel.
A reason suppresor are used by special forces or sometimes in general is really for flash suppression. You cant quiet it enough to make a difference in a battlefield but at night a gun blast is brighter than youd think.
Incorrect. Try suppressed, subsonic, 9mm or .300 blackout sometime.
Shhhh.
@@JasonJones-zn2os well yeah if it can cycle. Although 300 blk is great for that but it may be range limited. Still works great for flash suppression regardless.
@@niospartan Check out the De Lisle Carbine. Now, I will freely admit that is a niche weapon for a niche role, however it is silent, assuming you use subsonic .45 ACP. And yes, I know that from experience, fellow at my club has one. Not an original of course, they are rare as hens teeth, but an accurate replica. You cannot hear the report from 20 yards away on a still day. All you can hear is the bolt being worked if the operator is not trying to be particularly quiet about it, and the sound of the rounds impact with target, especially if you are shooting at steel. The weapon itself you cannot hear.
I will say again though that its a niche weapon for a niche role, it was issued primarily to Royal Marine Commando's to take down guards or small patrols from short range silently. So it is of questionable use in modern warfare, but Special Forces would be the kind of people a weapon with an integral suppressor firing subsonic rounds for close range silent kills may have a valid role for.
Basically, it’s the difference between standing next to a jet engine turbine and a V8 in a truck. But if you use subsonic ammo, you can get spooky quiet. Also the NFA of 1934 didn’t ban suppressors, they’re just very regulated: you have to pay a $200 tax stamp, get the background check equivalent of a colonoscopy, and register it with the ATF. But they’re 100% legal to own in all but 4 states.
Mr. Naylor, I have no real idea whether or not anything you've written is true. I assume that it is. All that aside, the way you wrote it leaves the reader with a definite case of the creeps. " if you use subsonic ammo, you can get spooky quiet." and, "the background check equivalent of a colonoscopy." both leave me with a slight sense of dread. Well done.
@@russellmarra8520
1. Look up suppressor regulation in the US on google or even TH-cam. I gave a rough outline, it's easily verifiable.
2. Subsonic ammo doesn't have enough powder behind it to break the sound barrier, which is what causes the characteristic bang when you fire a gun. Thus, "subsonic" or slower than the sound barrier. It also consequently has much less energy than regular ammo. But it still makes noise. And you have to wear ear protection or risk hearing damage.
3. "Spooky quiet" is just what I've heard subsonic ammo fired through a suppressor called. It still makes audible noise, it's just remarkably comfortable to hear without hearing protection. Calm down. Totally silent shooting is basically a figment of Hollywood's imagination.
4. The ATF's Form 4 is the background check equivalent of a colonoscopy. The paperwork is a nightmare and is recommended to have a professional help you file it. If they find even the tiniest detail wrong, they send it back and make you do it over. You also have to submit your fingerprints and passport photos, and notify the ATF any time you intend to move to another state. And it takes months to process because they're running all of your information through all the major 3 letter agencies' databases.
5. I've done my best to abate your dread but I really can't help you if you're creeped out by bureaucracy and/or descriptions of firearm-related items. That's on you.
@@nicknaylor9895
Welrods, DeLisles, and certain .22 LRs are effectively movie quiet.
@@nicknaylor9895 I think you misunderstood my previous post in reply to your original. I wasn't challenging anything you said. I was complementing how you said it.
Meanwhile in CA not only are suppressors entirely illegal, you can't even buy a weapon with a threaded barrel for them unless you are an LEO.
I was impressed by the overall well-informed presentation of this topic. In fact, I think you folks might have just earned yourself a nod of respect from the most lexicologically-anal-retentive community on youtube.
Fantastic video, but there is one thing to add. You mentioned that there are three ways to reduce the speed of a bullet; less propellant, wipes, or porting the barrel. There is another, much more common method that works very well. Increasing the weight of the bullet. For example, the standard 115 grain 9mm bullet is supersonic when used in virtually any firearm (+/- 1150 fps). However, a 147 grain 9mm bullet is usually subsonic (+/- 1000 fps). Both grain weights are readily available as factory ammo and don't require custom loading. For reference, the speed of sound at sea level is around 1100 fps. Higher elevations and colder temperatures can reduce the speed of sound such that a 147 grain 9mm bullet could be supersonic at very high altitudes and/or very cold temperatures, or when shot out of a longer rifle barrel at moderate altitudes and/or cold temperatures.
Great video! I wish people would watch this and understand the myths behind them.
For a non gun guy, this is surprisingly accurate!
But if you’re a non gun guy, how would you know? Just wondering in common sense.
@@AbruptandOffensive I was thinking the same thing. But I think he was referring to the presenter being that non gun guy.
@@AbruptandOffensive I think he means that Simon is a "non-gun guy" not him/her self
@@AbruptandOffensive I meant that Simon was a non gun guy. I'm addicted to them, and have used suppressors with supersonic and subsonic ammo.
@@BareSphereMass I was pleasantly surprised too. He nailed it... almost. Right at the end he got it wrong on suppressive fire. He said it's a big deal when you can't hear the gunshot, but this is false. Suppressive fire effectiveness is mostly decided by how loud the supersonic crack is and how close you can get the bullets to impact next to the opponent. It's actually more intimidating when you hear the crack nearby, you see the impact nearby, but you cannot figure out where the shot came from. Also, US Marines are introducing suppressors to regular troops. This indicates it is a good idea to use suppressors for regular troops. The only real down side is logistics (another thing you need to manufacture, ship around, maintain, etc).
When combined with subsonic ammo, certain guns can get close to “Hollywood quiet”
True.
.300 blackout can be loaded quiet enough that, when combined with a suppressor, you can hear the bullet smacking the soft earth berm over the noise of the firing.
Out of a bolt action or other manually operated firearm. No semi automatic firearm could ever achieve "Hollywood" quiet.
The Welrod with new wipes gets damn close.
Of course a .22 can be extremely quiet, but that's just cheating.
Ian from Forgotten Weapons tested a Knights XM9 (USAF survival pistol.) With fresh wipes and the slide-lock engaged, noise was basically reduced to a "click". Like dud-round or dry firing on an empty chamber.
Yes but they lack the ballistic energy to be combat effective. Essentially you have an overly complex sling slot. Deadly sure with a lot of luck but so is a well throw rock
This was aa great in depth review of suppressors. You touched on the concept of reduced/elimination muzzle flash. That's one area that I think deserves a little more time. That is also very important when considering use of a suppressor. The muzzle flash can really pinpoint your position in intermediate distance combat. So getting rid of that signature is a huge benefit of suppressor use. Other than that, very spot on video.
A Finnish expression dating from the Winter War says that "A silencer does not make a soldier silent, but it does make him invisible."
Concise, accurate and produced without pandering to the hysteria attached to firearms. Brilliant video.
Appreciate the honest information given!
I will add that it's relatively easy to achieve "Hollywood quiet" gunshots using manual action 22lr rifles and commonly available subsonic ammunition like CCI Quiet. The tradeoff however is you're firing a bullet so small and slow that it's effectively an up-jumped BB gun.
I know I can say that sport shooters like myself would all be grateful if suppressors were deregulated, because hearing loss is a major issue, especially amongst hunters who can't wear hearing protection and still hunt effectively.
Fun fact: 90 rounds of 5.56 fired rapidly through my suppressor gets it hot enough to light a cigar off of the side.
That's an expensive way to light a cigar in today's times. Lol
@@ginobenedetto4943 $800 suppressor, $200 federal extortion fee, and $40 in ammunition. Bragging rights= priceless.
@@ronheil6558 Don't forget hoping you DIDN'T warp the can!
That was a great ending line!
"you may find yourself having the right to remain silent!"😉
yahahahahah
Ive fired a delisle carbine and they are hilarious fun. We hid behind a berm on a private range and had the owner shoot over the berm (into the 200yd burm behind us) and from 50yds away all you could hear was the bullet cutting through the air overhead. No muzzle blast noise and no sonic crack because it shoots 45acp.
One of the most entertaining target guns ive shot. Listening to it ring steel was just so much fun.
Edit to lead with a thanks for intellectual honesty. Best non gun person video discussing suppressors objectively and without agenda I've ever seen!
I hear arguments against suppressors including the "If we allow suppressors then they'll develop better suppressors" ignoring the fact that they haven't put deafening alarms on all other weapons and, moreover, ignoring the laws of physics and the high barrier to owning a silencer meaning people in it for 200 dollars plus the cost of transfer and the months of wait have already created extremely durable and high quality devices. I mainly want them because of my hearing, I shoot recreationally and it's hard to find ear pro that solves all issues of being able to hear range commands/people trying to confirm a clear range or indicate a problem, blocking high pressure and decibels, and maintaining a proper cheek weld and/or sight picture with glasses on. Suppressors are harm reduction for the ear.
I've heard that when the lawmakers we're drafting the NFA, they only included silencers because they didn't want poachers to be as effective. Considering this was during the great depression and people were starving...they obviously didn't have their priorities straight. But I also heard they put in silencers.....without even discussing silencers. No reason whatsoever.
ive heard that the very very first drafts of it were going to be targeting specifically pistols and nothing else. And then everything else evolved from there. That's why short barrel rifles and shotguns and AOWs (Any Other Weapon classification) were added to the title 2 firearms list, along with the initial intent to ban handguns, it was part of an attempt to stop drive by shootings from prohibition era gang violence. Why the politicians decided on the minimum barrel length for rifles being 16" and the minimum for shotguns being 18", likely nobody will ever know. Why they arent either both 16" or both 18" seems like the most bizarre thing of the whole law. It makes absolutely no sense for there to be different length rules...
And to add another detail to the anti poaching comment, the lawmakers were largely misguided in that endeavor as bullets from most rifles and pistols move faster than the speed of sound, so even without a silencer, the bullet will impact the target before the sound from the muzzle reaches the target. So regulating silencers to stop poaching, was not a sensible thing.
@@ZE0XE0 nothing about the NFA makes sense. The reason they set the tax at $200 was because the Thompson cost $200. Back then that was like buying a car. So they want to make it so only people that had disposable income could buy NFA items. All in an attempt to curb mob gang violence. Who were rich. And could afford the tax anyways.
@@shawnwillis7561 iirc, many mob families had shops and armourers in their pockets, so instead of buying they'd rent firearms from them, thus skirting any purchasing and tax associated and limiting the paper trail.
@@ZE0XE0 the minimum barrel length set in the NFA was originally 18 inches for both rifles and shotguns, it was modified in the 1960s to 16" for rifles due to the large number of M1 carbines now on the surplus market, many of which had just under 18" barrels.
@@alexsawicki1721 I think it was TRex arms that said that as well. He has a video on that
Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Even the best ones only reduce the noise and flash by a fraction, for supersonic ammo the noise reduction is not even a thing since the bullet makes noise itself with the shockwave through the fly, not only with the initial detonation, even so, silencers or supressors can be useful under some circumnstances, particularly, as implied, with subsonic ammo.
Suppressors most certainly DO reduce noise on supersonic ammo, just not as effectively as subsonic. Tell me you don't own a suppressor and have never shot a firearm with one on it, without telling me.
@@chrishaugh1655 As I wrote, YES, those devices work,you are simply reapeating what I wrote with different words and trying to disagree splitting hairs....anger managment issues?
@@cesaravegah3787 and I quote " for supersonic ammo the noise reduction is not even a thing." You literally said it's not a thing and I'm correcting you because that statement is false, completely. It also greatly depends on the ammo used and the type of suppressor.
Making a blanket statement like "Even the best ones only reduce the noise and flash by a fraction" is also wrong. It's not anger management issues, it's me correcting constant inaccuracies made in YT comments by people who clearly don't know what they're talking about.
Other than the correction mentioned by Kelton Oliver, this is an excellent video on suppressors. Well done and congratulations! One type that you missed mentioning was the flow through design by OSS. It essentially works like a turbine in reverse and won a US Army contract a few years back.
Indeed, I actually used to pick up and deliver from OSS and saw their products and was even there for some testing. Very cool tech.
@@curseofthegreat Indeed, very cool tech. I have six of them and when I take them to the range and shoot my AR or MDRx, people are amazed at how quiet they are and then they ask, "Where's the gas in your face?" I don't think I'll buy a different brand ever again.
This is the most accurate source of information about suppressors from a non-firearms channel I’ve ever seen! One small point you missed is that silencer is also an accurate term, as Maxim’s initial patent used the term instead of suppressor. The focus on semantics is only kept around by the older generation of shooters.
Apologies for forgetting the name but there's a few semiauto handguns that have the ability to lock the slide for each shot that greatly reduces noise from escaping much like that Russian revolver. They were used for the reasons you listed and had a suppressor that used wipes with extra wipes for taking out more than one target. Forgotten Weapons covered what I'm commenting about. Hope that helps.
Silencers make actual gunshots sound like movie gunshots.
Actual gunshots sound like those deliberately overly loud fireworks that just make a bang, but generally louder.
Glad to help 👍🏼
I'd love to have real life sound dynamics in a movie theater! Could you imagine surprise attack in a war movie - first you try your best to hear what they're whispering about the plan, and next you know there's artillery and hundreds of assault rifles going off. I'd be so "sensational". :D
@@informed-apprentice8179 You'd end up deaf too 😂
Speaking as a keen shooter, it’s nice to see such an accurate summation of suppressors - they’re all too often misrepresented, not least by the world of entertainment. A few small errors - and of course the pronunciation of “Nagant” - but all in all this is great.
The reduction in recoil and muzzle flash is understated here. That is a significant advantage for snipers and hunters.
And for police raiding meth labs.
It depends on the gun and caliber that is being suppressed. I've fired my AR15 suppressed. With standard velocity ammunition, hearing protection is still needed. Standard velocity .45acp suppresses very well and .22lr sounds like an air rifle.
I'm glad you made this video. Living in the U.S. I've seen gun silencers used, both in Hollywood movies and in real life. I've been telling people silencers didn't really "silence" guns when it went off. Few believed me, they're quicker to believe Hollywood. Even after I told them a silencer is called a supresser... they then didn't know what I was talking about. They then thought I was talking about 2 different things. I didn't know the science between a gun silencer/supresser, but I knew a gun supresser didn't "silence" the gun and I'm glad you showed the science behind the how and why.
Superb video, thank you! Great balance of science and history.
Thank you for a very well researched and honest look at suppressors. Over here in the US almost all we get is propaganda from one side or the other.
Thank you Simon. As an avid firearms enthusiast this is very, very well done. Although the term silencer is moving back to where it belongs. It was the term used in the original patent. Also the NRA is useless. There are also some newer cartridges that are moving towards the "Hollywood" level of "silenced" in rifle calibers.
An excellent assessment of firearm suppressors. As with anything else once the government finds a way to take it's citizens money and freedom it will never turn it loose. That is why a 200 dollar tax stamp and a registered number is required for something that many can make in the home workshop for less than 20 dollars. Also as a hearing impaired person it burns me up that something that can help protect hearing has to be jumped through government hoops for.
Great video and explanation.
@11:40 a deeper explanation of dB would have been usefully here. A lot of people might not understand that dB is NOT a linear scale - a 10dB reduction is a reduction of power by a factor of 10 -- a 20dB reduction is a reduction of power by a factor of 100 etc etc. So a reduction from 140 to 111 is close to a reduction of power factor of 1,000. Roughly going down from a jet engine to a hammer drill. Still loud but quite a difference