This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silencer (firearms) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
And here are a few articles:
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)
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)
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)
Hi Mike, thanks for the advice, although I'm not sure I get what you are saying. There were only two citations in the second paragraph of the intro, neither of which are named. I could not see any issue arising out of the removal of those lines either. 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 11:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok sounds good. I still think we should remove this second paragraph from the introduction, it really serves no purpose and the origin of the word silencer is discussed a few lines further (not to mention that reference3 is using a single, completely irrelevant article to imply 'widespread use' which is not only incorrect but improper use of the citation system). Second sentence is discussed in Sources of firearm noise section. Finally, the legal terminology in the last sentence is just clutter. regards 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 15:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The lede needs work, but I don't think I would trim it yet. The lede (or intro) is supposed to summarize the article. So information in the lede will appear redundant at times. This isn't like a magazine article or book chapter. The lede is a quick summary that pops up in search results, on phones, etc. Probably after the article is improved we can rework it to make it more accurate and coherent.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I find the first paragraph does that very well for now. The second isn't redundant, it's just confusing and unnecessary. It summarises the article, yes, but not accurately. I think it's the first step in bringing this article up to B standard; we can systematically work the article and then come back to the introduction because it's going to change again for sure. 'Legalities of suppressors' in the US is only briefly discussed in one paragraph of a part of section 4 and this issue in and of itself is going to become an article as soon as someone decides to put the time into it (and there's going to be an article for the legals of suppressors in every country eventually) so there's really no point in putting this in an article that is clearly more technical in nature. I also think we can only do this one step at a time, and by the looks of it it's going to take quite a bit of time. Honestly, the article is a disaster, and there's no reason for it to be because there is plenty of information about this. 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, glad we could agree. I'll be looking forward to your comments. I have no military background, but a lot of professional experience with firearms. I'll keep your advice in mind throughout the process here. Thanks again. regards 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Progress --- the opposite of Congress.
But seriously, why is this section even in this article?
I say, remove it. --- 98.245.171.233 ( talk) 20:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. This is exactly what decriminalisation and legalisation of suppressors is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 03:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody explain why this section and the comments in it are on the talk page for this article? I don't see any connection with the topic and I think the section should be removed. --- Dagme ( talk) 20:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Something that isn't really covered in this article is how sound suppressors, by virtue of slowing down a fired cartridge's hot propellant gases, allow those same gases to heat up the suppressor and the attached firearm more quickly than it would had the gases been allowed to simply leave the muzzle unsuppressed. You can see a number of youtube vids showing guns with suppressors being shot while being recorded on infrared cameras, or how suppressed guns at firing ranges get hot enough to boil water poured on them after a bit of firing. Even the article here on the old Sten mentions how the suppressed versions overheated very quickly.
The question is, how much faster do suppressors increase the rate at which a suppressor-equipped firearm heats up? Does the increase depend on the design? Do integral suppressors heat up faster due to how they bleed off more propellant gas than non-integral ones do? -- Mazryonh ( talk) 06:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
What do socialists have to do with this? What is wrong with you? --- Dagme ( talk) 06:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Suppressor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
US 4384507 A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.51 ( talk) 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Since when do we mention proposed or failed legislation? If the law passes then of course we'd mention it. But if we add every proposed law to related articles then there'd be an overwhelming amount fairly useless material in articles. I note that the congressman is about to retire, and the the bill isn't even notable enough to mention in his biography. Unless someone has a good reason for including it, I'll delete it (again). Felsic2 ( talk) 18:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Amazon.com has a searchable version of this book. [1] Searching it doesn't bring up any instances of "counter" or "mail" or any relevant mention of "Norway". The citation to this book and "Volume 1" have been tagged with "page number" requests for 18 months. [2] Furthermore, the citation to some material was added nine years after the material itself was added. [3] [4] @ Mike Searson: So I'm calling "bullshit". Unless someone can verify the citations to this source, I'm deleting it.
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
page needed
-- Felsic2 ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
The following is unsourced; moving here, per WP:PRESERVE
-- Jytdog ( talk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This reduces or eliminates attention drawn to the shooter (hence the
Finnish expression: "A suppressor does not make a marksman silent, but it does make him
invisible").
[1]
failed verification
[1]
This was added back in 2006. [6] A Reddit thread casts doubt on it. [7] 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. [8] Felsic2 ( talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
from this page:
Alan C. Paulson, a renowned firearms specialist, claimed to have encountered an integrally suppressed .22 LR that had such a quiet report,[14] although this is somewhat uncommon."
I've known people who used the OSS guns. They cannot be heard (in .22 Short) at a distance of 15 feet.
Properly evaluating the sound generated by a firearm can only be done using a decibel meter in conjunction with a frequency spectrum analyser during live tests.
I've never heard of anyone using a frequency analyser to test a silencer. And I don't think it is necessary. A local gun range, (Freedom Arsenal) has designed and engineered their own suppressors. There .22 rimfire silencer has the best rating for sound suppression on the market. Digitallymade ( talk) 14:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Arguably, the NRA name game has created a counter movement among gun rights activists, making use of silencer no more neutral than suppressor. The fact is, however, that Wikipedia follows a common name policy. This is why we have Anti-abortion movements and pro-life is a redirect, even if activists on one side feel slighted by the words. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC) -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous titleas a way to avoid using a parenthetical disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 12:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Dictionary examples of silence (v)
|
---|
The OED says the verb silence means "1.a. trans. To cause or compel (one) to cease speaking on a particular occasion; also, to overcome in argument." Overcoming in argument does not only deal with sound. "b. To cause (an animal or thing) to cease from giving out its natural sound; to still, quieten." Does not mean to make absolutely quiet; only quieter. " c. To stop, suppress (a noise or sound)" Literally defined as meaning suppress. It adds " put down, repress", and in battle, to compel enemy guns to stop firing, not to literally make them inaudible Ninjas. The American Heritage Dictionary agrees the words are literally synonyms: "To curtail the expression of; suppress: silencing all criticism; silenced their opponents." Merriam-Webster says silence (v) is "forbearance from speech or noise". Forbear means choosing not to, it doesn't mean becoming Ninja or ghost quiet. Webster also says "absence of mention" in the sense of "oblivion, obscurity, secrecy". MacMillain says "1 to stop someone or something from speaking or making a sound, 2 to prevent someone from giving an opinion or from criticizing you 3 very informal to kill someone so that they cannot give information to an enemy or someone in authority". Dictionary.com (Random House + Collins) says "1 to put or bring to silence; still. 2. to put (doubts, fears, etc.) to rest; quiet. 3. Military. to still (enemy guns), as by more effective fire." Doubts and fears do not only dieal with sound. This is why we say "absolute silence" when that is what we mean; mere silence is like merely "cleaning". We don't use tortured definitions of eraser, or disinfectant or street cleaner this way; hundreds of English words would have to change it we followed this kind of logic. I have a very long list of evidence that the gun industry and gun media never thought silencer was wrong until 2011-2014. Before that, they always used the words interchangeably with no mention of silencer being wrong. Prior to the mid-90s, they never used suppressor to mean silencer; they only referred to flash suppressors with that word. Even post-2010, they only explicitly said that silencer is inaccurate if they were writing an advocacy or op-ed piece against legal restrictions of silencers. I even have one example of a product review in which they say the silencer works exactly like you see in Hollywood movies, quote "phut-phut" unquote, making the gun's discharge quieter than the bullet hitting the backstop. Keep in mind how suppress is defined at the OED " 1. trans. To overcome or keep down by force or authority. a. To reduce (a person, a community, corporate body, etc.) to impotence or inactivity; to deprive of position or power; to keep in a state of subjection." impotence or inactivity sound pretty absolute. " b. To overcome (a person or group) by force; to overpower, vanquish, subdue." When you vanquish or overpower something, it is done fighting; you have won entirely. If your country is invaded and you vanquish the invaders, you're not being invaded any more, not even a little bit. " 1.c. To withhold or withdraw, d. To cause (a practice, action, etc.) to cease; to put an end to; to prevent or disallow the use of; to stop, discontinue. Also: to put down (a rebellion, uprising, or the like) by force; 2 (trans) a. To banish or keep hidden". Banishment is absolute. Stop means stop. If you suppress the noise of gunfire, this says you're stopping the noise. "Putting an end to" the noise. Other dictionaries say the same things: "to stop" "top put an end to" "to keep secret". Note that something is either secret or it isn't. If it gets out, it's not secret. The AHT adds "curtail" and "prohibit". If you choose -- if you choose to read these definitions this way, then suppressor is just as inaccurate as silencer for the same reasons. Suppress can be read, if you so choose, as meaning absolutely putting down, preventing, or putting and end to. But as I said, English doesn't work that way. |
Below is a very long list of quotes from gun and defense industry media showing that silencer and suppressor have been used interchangeably for many years, leading up to the focused PR campaign to switch to suppressor. Earlier, suppressor was only used for flash suppressor. Suppressor started to become fashionable only the 90s, and even up to 2010 there was no distinction. After 2010, media sometimes preferred suppressor, and sometimes said silencer was wrong, but almost always only when the topic was advocacy or op-ed to change the laws restricting silencers in the US. Even after 2014, SilencerCo hasn't changed its name, and many US silencer manufacturers still call their products silencers. [10] GemTech for example categorizes many products as "silencers" and has it in the product names, but argues "Silencer, Muffler, Suppressor, Can... take your pick! The most scientifically accurate descriptor is, suppressor." [11]. Saying something is "scientifically accurate" doesn't make it scientific. GemTech offers no "scientific" evidence that suppressor is accurate. It's not a science question, it's a lexicographic question. The simple fact is that the definition of silence and suppress is not what these guys are claiming it is. Surefire likes suppressor but makes sure you can see their suppressors are silencers. [12]. AAG calls them silencers. AMTAC. Liberty.
List of gun/defense media quotes on silencer and suppressor
|
---|
Search Guns&Ammo prior to 2010 and the word suppressor only appears when referring to a flash suppressor. Articles during that period use silencer when they mean silencer. For example:
Even after 2010, the gun media casually treats silencer and suppressor as interchangeable. With only one or two exceptions, the only time the stop to argue that silencer is wrong is when they are writing an advocacy article calling for loosening restrictions on silencers, and addressing public misconceptions. Some of these articles specifically call out the fact that some aficionados prefer suppressor, but they normally chuckle and roll their eyes. Though the advocacy articles frequently fault Hollywood for making silencers seem truly silent, or at least very quiet, one non-op-ed product review affirmed that the silencer actually did work as seen in the movies. A Defense Electronics article described the tactical use of silencers, and said that they are effective in concealing a shooter from the enemy, contradicting the claim that they serve only to protect hearing and not to evade capture or elude police.
Non-OP-ED:
These are all advocacy or op-eds, addressing the restrictions on silencers:
|
-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see the point all the details about the use of sound moderator in the UK: [13] and [14]. 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"?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved - there is clear consensus against this proposed move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 06:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
– After this article's move from "suppressor" to "silencer", the article has become the clear primary topic for "silencer", with 6x as many pageviews as the scientific term. Since most people agree the proper name for this is a "silencer", it should be moved to the primary namespace ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Silencer (firearms) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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:
And here are a few articles:
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)
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)
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)
Hi Mike, thanks for the advice, although I'm not sure I get what you are saying. There were only two citations in the second paragraph of the intro, neither of which are named. I could not see any issue arising out of the removal of those lines either. 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 11:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ok sounds good. I still think we should remove this second paragraph from the introduction, it really serves no purpose and the origin of the word silencer is discussed a few lines further (not to mention that reference3 is using a single, completely irrelevant article to imply 'widespread use' which is not only incorrect but improper use of the citation system). Second sentence is discussed in Sources of firearm noise section. Finally, the legal terminology in the last sentence is just clutter. regards 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 15:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The lede needs work, but I don't think I would trim it yet. The lede (or intro) is supposed to summarize the article. So information in the lede will appear redundant at times. This isn't like a magazine article or book chapter. The lede is a quick summary that pops up in search results, on phones, etc. Probably after the article is improved we can rework it to make it more accurate and coherent.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I find the first paragraph does that very well for now. The second isn't redundant, it's just confusing and unnecessary. It summarises the article, yes, but not accurately. I think it's the first step in bringing this article up to B standard; we can systematically work the article and then come back to the introduction because it's going to change again for sure. 'Legalities of suppressors' in the US is only briefly discussed in one paragraph of a part of section 4 and this issue in and of itself is going to become an article as soon as someone decides to put the time into it (and there's going to be an article for the legals of suppressors in every country eventually) so there's really no point in putting this in an article that is clearly more technical in nature. I also think we can only do this one step at a time, and by the looks of it it's going to take quite a bit of time. Honestly, the article is a disaster, and there's no reason for it to be because there is plenty of information about this. 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Awesome, glad we could agree. I'll be looking forward to your comments. I have no military background, but a lot of professional experience with firearms. I'll keep your advice in mind throughout the process here. Thanks again. regards 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Progress --- the opposite of Congress.
But seriously, why is this section even in this article?
I say, remove it. --- 98.245.171.233 ( talk) 20:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Progressivism is a general political philosophy based on the idea of progress that asserts that advances in science, technology, economic development, and social organization, can improve the human condition. This is exactly what decriminalisation and legalisation of suppressors is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.1.84 ( talk) 03:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Can somebody explain why this section and the comments in it are on the talk page for this article? I don't see any connection with the topic and I think the section should be removed. --- Dagme ( talk) 20:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Something that isn't really covered in this article is how sound suppressors, by virtue of slowing down a fired cartridge's hot propellant gases, allow those same gases to heat up the suppressor and the attached firearm more quickly than it would had the gases been allowed to simply leave the muzzle unsuppressed. You can see a number of youtube vids showing guns with suppressors being shot while being recorded on infrared cameras, or how suppressed guns at firing ranges get hot enough to boil water poured on them after a bit of firing. Even the article here on the old Sten mentions how the suppressed versions overheated very quickly.
The question is, how much faster do suppressors increase the rate at which a suppressor-equipped firearm heats up? Does the increase depend on the design? Do integral suppressors heat up faster due to how they bleed off more propellant gas than non-integral ones do? -- Mazryonh ( talk) 06:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
What do socialists have to do with this? What is wrong with you? --- Dagme ( talk) 06:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Suppressor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 13:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
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)
US 4384507 A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.51 ( talk) 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Since when do we mention proposed or failed legislation? If the law passes then of course we'd mention it. But if we add every proposed law to related articles then there'd be an overwhelming amount fairly useless material in articles. I note that the congressman is about to retire, and the the bill isn't even notable enough to mention in his biography. Unless someone has a good reason for including it, I'll delete it (again). Felsic2 ( talk) 18:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Amazon.com has a searchable version of this book. [1] Searching it doesn't bring up any instances of "counter" or "mail" or any relevant mention of "Norway". The citation to this book and "Volume 1" have been tagged with "page number" requests for 18 months. [2] Furthermore, the citation to some material was added nine years after the material itself was added. [3] [4] @ Mike Searson: So I'm calling "bullshit". Unless someone can verify the citations to this source, I'm deleting it.
References
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
page needed
-- Felsic2 ( talk) 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
The following is unsourced; moving here, per WP:PRESERVE
-- Jytdog ( talk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
This reduces or eliminates attention drawn to the shooter (hence the
Finnish expression: "A suppressor does not make a marksman silent, but it does make him
invisible").
[1]
failed verification
[1]
This was added back in 2006. [6] A Reddit thread casts doubt on it. [7] 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. [8] Felsic2 ( talk) 16:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
from this page:
Alan C. Paulson, a renowned firearms specialist, claimed to have encountered an integrally suppressed .22 LR that had such a quiet report,[14] although this is somewhat uncommon."
I've known people who used the OSS guns. They cannot be heard (in .22 Short) at a distance of 15 feet.
Properly evaluating the sound generated by a firearm can only be done using a decibel meter in conjunction with a frequency spectrum analyser during live tests.
I've never heard of anyone using a frequency analyser to test a silencer. And I don't think it is necessary. A local gun range, (Freedom Arsenal) has designed and engineered their own suppressors. There .22 rimfire silencer has the best rating for sound suppression on the market. Digitallymade ( talk) 14:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
References
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 20:21, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Arguably, the NRA name game has created a counter movement among gun rights activists, making use of silencer no more neutral than suppressor. The fact is, however, that Wikipedia follows a common name policy. This is why we have Anti-abortion movements and pro-life is a redirect, even if activists on one side feel slighted by the words. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC) -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous titleas a way to avoid using a parenthetical disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 12:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Dictionary examples of silence (v)
|
---|
The OED says the verb silence means "1.a. trans. To cause or compel (one) to cease speaking on a particular occasion; also, to overcome in argument." Overcoming in argument does not only deal with sound. "b. To cause (an animal or thing) to cease from giving out its natural sound; to still, quieten." Does not mean to make absolutely quiet; only quieter. " c. To stop, suppress (a noise or sound)" Literally defined as meaning suppress. It adds " put down, repress", and in battle, to compel enemy guns to stop firing, not to literally make them inaudible Ninjas. The American Heritage Dictionary agrees the words are literally synonyms: "To curtail the expression of; suppress: silencing all criticism; silenced their opponents." Merriam-Webster says silence (v) is "forbearance from speech or noise". Forbear means choosing not to, it doesn't mean becoming Ninja or ghost quiet. Webster also says "absence of mention" in the sense of "oblivion, obscurity, secrecy". MacMillain says "1 to stop someone or something from speaking or making a sound, 2 to prevent someone from giving an opinion or from criticizing you 3 very informal to kill someone so that they cannot give information to an enemy or someone in authority". Dictionary.com (Random House + Collins) says "1 to put or bring to silence; still. 2. to put (doubts, fears, etc.) to rest; quiet. 3. Military. to still (enemy guns), as by more effective fire." Doubts and fears do not only dieal with sound. This is why we say "absolute silence" when that is what we mean; mere silence is like merely "cleaning". We don't use tortured definitions of eraser, or disinfectant or street cleaner this way; hundreds of English words would have to change it we followed this kind of logic. I have a very long list of evidence that the gun industry and gun media never thought silencer was wrong until 2011-2014. Before that, they always used the words interchangeably with no mention of silencer being wrong. Prior to the mid-90s, they never used suppressor to mean silencer; they only referred to flash suppressors with that word. Even post-2010, they only explicitly said that silencer is inaccurate if they were writing an advocacy or op-ed piece against legal restrictions of silencers. I even have one example of a product review in which they say the silencer works exactly like you see in Hollywood movies, quote "phut-phut" unquote, making the gun's discharge quieter than the bullet hitting the backstop. Keep in mind how suppress is defined at the OED " 1. trans. To overcome or keep down by force or authority. a. To reduce (a person, a community, corporate body, etc.) to impotence or inactivity; to deprive of position or power; to keep in a state of subjection." impotence or inactivity sound pretty absolute. " b. To overcome (a person or group) by force; to overpower, vanquish, subdue." When you vanquish or overpower something, it is done fighting; you have won entirely. If your country is invaded and you vanquish the invaders, you're not being invaded any more, not even a little bit. " 1.c. To withhold or withdraw, d. To cause (a practice, action, etc.) to cease; to put an end to; to prevent or disallow the use of; to stop, discontinue. Also: to put down (a rebellion, uprising, or the like) by force; 2 (trans) a. To banish or keep hidden". Banishment is absolute. Stop means stop. If you suppress the noise of gunfire, this says you're stopping the noise. "Putting an end to" the noise. Other dictionaries say the same things: "to stop" "top put an end to" "to keep secret". Note that something is either secret or it isn't. If it gets out, it's not secret. The AHT adds "curtail" and "prohibit". If you choose -- if you choose to read these definitions this way, then suppressor is just as inaccurate as silencer for the same reasons. Suppress can be read, if you so choose, as meaning absolutely putting down, preventing, or putting and end to. But as I said, English doesn't work that way. |
Below is a very long list of quotes from gun and defense industry media showing that silencer and suppressor have been used interchangeably for many years, leading up to the focused PR campaign to switch to suppressor. Earlier, suppressor was only used for flash suppressor. Suppressor started to become fashionable only the 90s, and even up to 2010 there was no distinction. After 2010, media sometimes preferred suppressor, and sometimes said silencer was wrong, but almost always only when the topic was advocacy or op-ed to change the laws restricting silencers in the US. Even after 2014, SilencerCo hasn't changed its name, and many US silencer manufacturers still call their products silencers. [10] GemTech for example categorizes many products as "silencers" and has it in the product names, but argues "Silencer, Muffler, Suppressor, Can... take your pick! The most scientifically accurate descriptor is, suppressor." [11]. Saying something is "scientifically accurate" doesn't make it scientific. GemTech offers no "scientific" evidence that suppressor is accurate. It's not a science question, it's a lexicographic question. The simple fact is that the definition of silence and suppress is not what these guys are claiming it is. Surefire likes suppressor but makes sure you can see their suppressors are silencers. [12]. AAG calls them silencers. AMTAC. Liberty.
List of gun/defense media quotes on silencer and suppressor
|
---|
Search Guns&Ammo prior to 2010 and the word suppressor only appears when referring to a flash suppressor. Articles during that period use silencer when they mean silencer. For example:
Even after 2010, the gun media casually treats silencer and suppressor as interchangeable. With only one or two exceptions, the only time the stop to argue that silencer is wrong is when they are writing an advocacy article calling for loosening restrictions on silencers, and addressing public misconceptions. Some of these articles specifically call out the fact that some aficionados prefer suppressor, but they normally chuckle and roll their eyes. Though the advocacy articles frequently fault Hollywood for making silencers seem truly silent, or at least very quiet, one non-op-ed product review affirmed that the silencer actually did work as seen in the movies. A Defense Electronics article described the tactical use of silencers, and said that they are effective in concealing a shooter from the enemy, contradicting the claim that they serve only to protect hearing and not to evade capture or elude police.
Non-OP-ED:
These are all advocacy or op-eds, addressing the restrictions on silencers:
|
-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:10, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see the point all the details about the use of sound moderator in the UK: [13] and [14]. 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"?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: not moved - there is clear consensus against this proposed move. ( closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 ( talk) 06:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
– After this article's move from "suppressor" to "silencer", the article has become the clear primary topic for "silencer", with 6x as many pageviews as the scientific term. Since most people agree the proper name for this is a "silencer", it should be moved to the primary namespace ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 23:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)