suppressor question
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26216
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 576 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
It depends on whether you add a suppressor to the end of your barrel or make holes in your existing barrel to make an integral suppressor.
Look up silencers/suppressors using the search function, I'm certain that any doubts or questions you might have have already been answered in detail elsewhere. Designs similar to those in the tutorial will work, but with pneumatics the emphasis must be on volume - make it as big as you're comfortable to live with.
Look up silencers/suppressors using the search function, I'm certain that any doubts or questions you might have have already been answered in detail elsewhere. Designs similar to those in the tutorial will work, but with pneumatics the emphasis must be on volume - make it as big as you're comfortable to live with.
This is something of a myth, propagated by two factors.
Firstly, people assume loud is more powerful. Even if the end result is identical, the lack of noise will have already affected how you look at what you're seeing. There was an experiment some time back where they looked at how wine tasters were affected by other stimuli.
Basically, long story short, they took two glasses of identical white wine, and coloured one of them to appear red (without the knowledge of the taster), which then affected how the wine was described. They saw a red wine, so they were expecting to taste a red wine. Obviously, blindfolding them stopped them being tricked.
If you want to observe this effect, try getting someone to eat baked beans you've dyed blue, or give someone their coffee in a glass rather than a mug. The fact that one thing has changed affects their view of the whole, and if they consent to eat/drink whatever you've concocted, they'll probably comment on the funny taste.
Similarly, the same experiment also took two glasses of identical white wine, but described one as cheap plonk and the other as something quite fancy. The researcher in the room played the part of each being bad or good (respectively), and like with the colour, the tasters gave different descriptions of each. No researcher tricking them, and no descriptions given, they could work out it was the same wine.
Again, you can try this at home. Any two identical foods (you can use baked beans again if you want), just portray them as being different brands/tins/ages/somethings, and say one tastes icky and the other good (before they start trying them!), people will probably agree.
So part of the problem is mental trickery. If it sounds quiet, you don't expect it to be powerful, so when you look at the carnage, your view of it is already polarised.
Secondly, there are some suppressors that do contain devices known as "wipes", which are designed to slow slightly supersonic bullets down to subsonic levels so that they don't have a sonic shockwave, hence making them quieter. This obviously does affect power.
I'll assume you have no intention to build a suppressor with a wipe in it, so the points that Jack makes above stand.
Firstly, people assume loud is more powerful. Even if the end result is identical, the lack of noise will have already affected how you look at what you're seeing. There was an experiment some time back where they looked at how wine tasters were affected by other stimuli.
Basically, long story short, they took two glasses of identical white wine, and coloured one of them to appear red (without the knowledge of the taster), which then affected how the wine was described. They saw a red wine, so they were expecting to taste a red wine. Obviously, blindfolding them stopped them being tricked.
If you want to observe this effect, try getting someone to eat baked beans you've dyed blue, or give someone their coffee in a glass rather than a mug. The fact that one thing has changed affects their view of the whole, and if they consent to eat/drink whatever you've concocted, they'll probably comment on the funny taste.
Similarly, the same experiment also took two glasses of identical white wine, but described one as cheap plonk and the other as something quite fancy. The researcher in the room played the part of each being bad or good (respectively), and like with the colour, the tasters gave different descriptions of each. No researcher tricking them, and no descriptions given, they could work out it was the same wine.
Again, you can try this at home. Any two identical foods (you can use baked beans again if you want), just portray them as being different brands/tins/ages/somethings, and say one tastes icky and the other good (before they start trying them!), people will probably agree.
So part of the problem is mental trickery. If it sounds quiet, you don't expect it to be powerful, so when you look at the carnage, your view of it is already polarised.
Secondly, there are some suppressors that do contain devices known as "wipes", which are designed to slow slightly supersonic bullets down to subsonic levels so that they don't have a sonic shockwave, hence making them quieter. This obviously does affect power.
I'll assume you have no intention to build a suppressor with a wipe in it, so the points that Jack makes above stand.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
- jackssmirkingrevenge
- Five Star General
- Posts: 26216
- Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
- Has thanked: 576 times
- Been thanked: 347 times
Removable silencers can actually increase performance, albeit not significantly, as in this test I performed here:
Some silencers like the integral one fitted to the H&K MP5SD slow down supersonic ammunition in order to remove the sonic "crack", but at the same time reducing muzzle energy. Most silencers however do not affect muzzle velocity and in some cases actually increase the speed by a few feet per second.
I did a test recently, I tried two 5 shot strings with my Daystate Mk3 with and without silencer. In between strings I refilled the rifle to the same pressure. Here are the results in feet per second:
First, without silencer - 860, 860, 870, 869, 872 (866.2 average)
With the Daystate airstream CF silencer fitted - 877, 880, 884, 882, 883 (881.2 average)
This gives an average increase in velocity of 15 feet per second - in practical terms, an insignificant increase, which you'd never notice without a chrony, but interesting nonetheless.
- POLAND_SPUD
- Captain
- Posts: 5402
- Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
- Been thanked: 1 time
well if I may add something...
...a suppressor won't make accuracy worse.. in fact it will improve it as it greatly reduces muzzle blast which might affect projectile stability after leaving the barrel
...a suppressor won't make accuracy worse.. in fact it will improve it as it greatly reduces muzzle blast which might affect projectile stability after leaving the barrel
Children are the future
unless we stop them now
unless we stop them now
Quite right. The idea that they do is another myth linked to silencers with wipes in them - which can cause accuracy issues.POLAND_SPUD wrote:A suppressor won't make accuracy worse.
Generally, if a silencer is supposed to have a negative effect (beyond increasing the size and bulk of what it's attached to), then a lot of these are myths connected to silencers with wipes.
Does that thing kinda look like a big cat to you?
- Technician1002
- Captain
- Posts: 5189
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:10 am
Using a muzzle brake, compensator, silencer, suppressor, or anything to reduce muzzle blast does affect accuracy. Even chamber size to barrel size so the blast is reduced make a difference.POLAND_SPUD wrote:well if I may add something...
...a suppressor won't make accuracy worse.. in fact it will improve it as it greatly reduces muzzle blast which might affect projectile stability after leaving the barrel
Attached is an early composite photo of a high speed t shirt launch where muzzle blast and a corner of the t shirt being loose cause a very early tumble.
Fixing our muzzle blast with a muzzle brake and modifying our shirt roll improved the range and accuracy.