I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

How about rifles that are not gas-actuated semiautos, i.e. bolt,
lever or pump actions? Perhaps it's not feasible to effectively
suppress the report of a rifle with supersonic muzzle velocity, which
(I think) includes most modern centerfire rifles.

I certainly have no need or desire for a silencer, but I'm curious.

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

Yup, that's exactly what it has to do with. Remember that all sound is
simply pressure waves in an environmental medium (like air). The purpose of
a supressor (the correct term for a "silencer") is to take the
high-pressure, high-velocity gases at the muzzle (that are created by the
buring cartridge propellant), and simultaneiously reduce their pressure and
speed in a controlled manner to minimize the creation of sound pressure
waves in the air. It cannot do that if the burning gases are escaping to the
atmosphere at the cylinder gap.


How about rifles that are not gas-actuated semiautos, i.e. bolt,
lever or pump actions? Perhaps it's not feasible to effectively
suppress the report of a rifle with supersonic muzzle velocity,
which (I think) includes most modern centerfire rifles.

Any firearm with a completely enclosed chamber and barrel are good
candidates for suppressing with regards to minimizing the report from the
burning/expanding gases. Any manually actuated firearm will be inherently
quieter than an automatic or semi-automatic for two reasons: you minimize
the escaping of propellant gases; and you minimize the cycling sound from
the action. For example, there are suppressed Ruger 10/22 rifles where the
sound of the cycling semi-automatic action is louder than the muzzle report.
So, if the action was not semi-automatic, then that rifle would be even
quieter.

Yes, one does have to consider the sonic "crack" from supersonic velocity
bullets. But even if you fire supersonic rounds, the suppressor has value.
While won't be shooting silently, the benefits a

1. The supersonic "crack" alone does not sound quite like a normal gun shot,
so that might be confusing to some.
2. The supersonic crack is less localized, so it's more difficult to
determine the location of the shooter.
3. Sound volume decreases over distance in accordance with the
inverse-square law. So any reduction of sound is beneficial when the
listener is not nearby.

Regards,
Michael

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:07:23 GMT, "DeepDiver"
wrote:

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

Yup, that's exactly what it has to do with. Remember that all sound is
simply pressure waves in an environmental medium (like air). The purpose of
a supressor (the correct term for a "silencer") is to take the
high-pressure, high-velocity gases at the muzzle (that are created by the
buring cartridge propellant), and simultaneiously reduce their pressure and
speed in a controlled manner to minimize the creation of sound pressure
waves in the air. It cannot do that if the burning gases are escaping to the
atmosphere at the cylinder gap.


How about rifles that are not gas-actuated semiautos, i.e. bolt,
lever or pump actions? Perhaps it's not feasible to effectively
suppress the report of a rifle with supersonic muzzle velocity,
which (I think) includes most modern centerfire rifles.

Any firearm with a completely enclosed chamber and barrel are good
candidates for suppressing with regards to minimizing the report from the
burning/expanding gases. Any manually actuated firearm will be inherently
quieter than an automatic or semi-automatic for two reasons: you minimize
the escaping of propellant gases; and you minimize the cycling sound from
the action. For example, there are suppressed Ruger 10/22 rifles where the
sound of the cycling semi-automatic action is louder than the muzzle report.
So, if the action was not semi-automatic, then that rifle would be even
quieter.

Yes, one does have to consider the sonic "crack" from supersonic velocity
bullets. But even if you fire supersonic rounds, the suppressor has value.
While won't be shooting silently, the benefits a

1. The supersonic "crack" alone does not sound quite like a normal gun shot,
so that might be confusing to some.
2. The supersonic crack is less localized, so it's more difficult to
determine the location of the shooter.
3. Sound volume decreases over distance in accordance with the
inverse-square law. So any reduction of sound is beneficial when the
listener is not nearby.

Regards,
Michael

Thanks, Michael. All of what you said makes sense to me. I might
quibble that inverse square law doesn't hold if there is significant
near-ground temperature gradient resulting in acoustic refraction --
but that's a nit in this context. You certainly answered my
question!

"D" == DeepDiver writes:

D "Don Foreman" wrote in message
D ...
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

D Yup, that's exactly what it has to do with. Remember that all sound is
D simply pressure waves in an environmental medium (like air). The purpose of
D a supressor (the correct term for a "silencer") is to take the
D high-pressure, high-velocity gases at the muzzle (that are created by the
D buring cartridge propellant), and simultaneiously reduce their pressure and
D speed in a controlled manner to minimize the creation of sound pressure
D waves in the air. It cannot do that if the burning gases are escaping to the
D atmosphere at the cylinder gap.

Yes. One exception (there may be more) is the Nagant, which actually
moves the cylinder forward before firing to close this gap, and has
been fitted with silencers.

--
C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:35:23 -0500, Don Foreman wrote:
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.

That was probably me.

Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

Yup, the gap right there lets out a hella-big blast of gas, so even if
you muffle the muzzle blast, you've still got an un-silenced blast to
hear. Fire a revolver in a dark range and you can see how dramatic it
is. Some, of course, are looser and worse than others, but there has to
be a several to many thousandths gap or the thing won't
turn...especially once it gets a bit dirty...

How about rifles that are not gas-actuated semiautos, i.e. bolt,
lever or pump actions?

No other path for the expanding gas to leave but the muzzle, so no
problem. Semi-autos don't open until the bullet has already left, so
generally speaking there is very little pressure in the case when the
mechanism opens to eject it, so that's also not a problem.

Perhaps it's not feasible to effectively
suppress the report of a rifle with supersonic muzzle velocity, which
(I think) includes most modern centerfire rifles.

You can mute the muzzle blast, but the sonic boom is still there.
Subsonic loads would be needed, and getting an accurate one that's
subsonic is something I've never experimented with (not wanting to shell
out 2 bills for a license to buy a silencer).

I certainly have no need or desire for a silencer, but I'm curious.

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but
want to learn about.

Dave Hinz

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 01:35:23 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and
cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but
want to learn about.

Dave Hinz

Dave,
Should you ever decide to indulge your curiosity start with a CAR-15. You
can build a good suppressor cheaply and subsonic rounds are easy to load or
just purchase and even if you don't the thing will be very quiet. The sound
is also difficult to recognize if you haven't heard it before but it will
really get your attention if you have.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:50:40 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and
cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but
want to learn about.

Should you ever decide to indulge your curiosity start with a CAR-15.

(thinks)... Oddly, enough, I don't have one of those. I wonder how that
happened? Pretty sure it's because I like a nice walnut stock, and for
reasons I don't understand, I haven't seen anyone sell those for the AR.
Maybe that's a market?

You
can build a good suppressor cheaply and subsonic rounds are easy to load or
just purchase and even if you don't the thing will be very quiet. The sound
is also difficult to recognize if you haven't heard it before but it will
really get your attention if you have.

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:50:40 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Should you ever decide to indulge your curiosity start with a CAR-15.

(thinks)... Oddly, enough, I don't have one of those. I wonder how
that
happened? Pretty sure it's because I like a nice walnut stock, and
for
reasons I don't understand, I haven't seen anyone sell those for the
AR.
Maybe that's a market?

LOL


You
can build a good suppressor cheaply and subsonic rounds are easy to
load or just purchase and even if you don't the thing will be very
quiet. The sound is also difficult to recognize if you haven't heard
it before but it will really get your attention if you have.

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before
I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need
to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

I think you would find the process a little onerous but I could be wrong. I
just don't know your tolerance level for whatever bureaucratic falderal is
involved to make any pronouncement. I am sure you would have to jump through
hoops. I can tell you that in California that you would likely do a stretch
if you were caught fooling around like this, especially since 9/11. Even a
first offense as an interested hobbiest. I can't remember the law exactly
but I think it's ten years at the state level and the Feds would no doubt
pile on.
Nothing I have any interest in as a civilian and the days when I would fool
around with this stuff under arms are long over. YMMV.

--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:32:43 GMT, John R. Carroll wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

(thinks)... Oddly, enough, I don't have one of those. I wonder how
that
happened? Pretty sure it's because I like a nice walnut stock, and
for
reasons I don't understand, I haven't seen anyone sell those for the
AR.
Maybe that's a market?

LOL

No, I'm serious. Maybe people would buy nice wood for their ARs. I
know I would.

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before
I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need
to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

I think you would find the process a little onerous but I could be wrong. I
just don't know your tolerance level for whatever bureaucratic falderal is
involved to make any pronouncement. I am sure you would have to jump through
hoops.

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

I can tell you that in California that you would likely do a stretch
if you were caught fooling around like this, especially since 9/11. Even a
first offense as an interested hobbiest.

Well, to be fair, this is _not_ the sort of thing for casual tinkering.
You'd be an idiot to dick around with any sort of ATF offense.

I can't remember the law exactly
but I think it's ten years at the state level and the Feds would no doubt
pile on.

Dunno, doesn't matter. I can say with complete certainty that
everything I have is 100% legal, and I intend to keep it that way.
I don't even have the spike bayonet on my late-model Chinese SKS,
(it's OK on the Russians, y'see, because it's different somehow?!?!!)
because that would put it into an unimportable configuration. That may
have changed with the sunset of the 'ugly gun ban' here a few months
back, but as I'm not sure, the spike still is hanging next to the SKS
rather than installed on it.

Nothing I have any interest in as a civilian and the days when I would fool
around with this stuff under arms are long over. YMMV.

I would have enjoyed being an armorer, I think. Ah well...twiddling
bits pays well too...

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

How about rifles that are not gas-actuated semiautos, i.e. bolt,
lever or pump actions? Perhaps it's not feasible to effectively
suppress the report of a rifle with supersonic muzzle velocity, which
(I think) includes most modern centerfire rifles.

I certainly have no need or desire for a silencer, but I'm curious.

All good answers here. The best pistol to suppress is a P-08 Luger because
the chamber pressure is near zero by the time the toggle opens...not that I
would know for sure.

On 21 Sep 2005 14:22:37 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


You can mute the muzzle blast, but the sonic boom is still there.
Subsonic loads would be needed, and getting an accurate one that's
subsonic is something I've never experimented with (not wanting to shell
out 2 bills for a license to buy a silencer).


google ".30 whisper"


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before
I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need
to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

I think you would find the process a little onerous but I could be wrong. I
just don't know your tolerance level for whatever bureaucratic falderal is
involved to make any pronouncement. I am sure you would have to jump through
hoops.

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

On 21 Sep 2005 12:46:21 -0700, Larry Fishel wrote:

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

Could be. No interest either way, so I haven't looked into the details.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:50:40 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and
cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but
want to learn about.

Should you ever decide to indulge your curiosity start with a CAR-15.

(thinks)... Oddly, enough, I don't have one of those. I wonder how that
happened? Pretty sure it's because I like a nice walnut stock, and for
reasons I don't understand, I haven't seen anyone sell those for the AR.
Maybe that's a market?

You
can build a good suppressor cheaply and subsonic rounds are easy to load
or
just purchase and even if you don't the thing will be very quiet. The
sound
is also difficult to recognize if you haven't heard it before but it will
really get your attention if you have.

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

One of the underground publications had silencer plans using automotive
shock absorber bodies for the cases.

Bob Swinney

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:02:50 -0500, Robert Swinney wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

One of the underground publications had silencer plans using automotive
shock absorber bodies for the cases.

Bob Swinney

For the record, Bob wrote those last two lines, not me. Bob, please
take care with your attributions. I have no interest in being
associated with comments that could be construed as advocating building
unlicensed, controlled devices. Thank you.

Dave Hinz

Dave Hinz wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 15:32:43 GMT, John R. Carroll
wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:


No, I'm serious. Maybe people would buy nice wood for their ARs. I
know I would.

I have a customer in the NE that makes gun stocks. I'll see if they make
anything.
If not, and you want to aquire a custom, we might be able to make that
happen.
I am looking at the Linux thing BTW. Weber is already their but I haven't
looked over their product and besides them there isn't much else.
I will keeo you posted. A couple of very interesting stories to tell
already. This is getting more consideration than I would have thought.


You'd be an idiot to dick around with any sort of ATF offense.

This once I'll let you speak for me Dave :) You are exactly right.



Nothing I have any interest in as a civilian and the days when I
would fool around with this stuff under arms are long over. YMMV.

I would have enjoyed being an armorer, I think. Ah well...twiddling
bits pays well too...

I made a titanium frame and carbon fiber slide with inserts for my DE 50.
Colt would be proud.
The 50 cal is nice but heavy. I cut the weight and changed the balance
nicely. Even built in a brake that works.
You wouldn't believe the **** I had to go through to do it. Good thing I
have a couple of Mfgrs as customers.
I would not have done it otherwise. The paper was as much work as the
machining. I'd guess it's a ten thousand dollar piece at this point.


--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com

Dave Hinz wrote:

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but
want to learn about.

I used to have a match grade heavy barrel Remington .22, forget the
exact model. I found this thing was almost silent shooting .22 standard
velocity shorts. CB caps were even quiter.

I have some BB caps (.22 cal ball and primer, no powder) and these are
quieter in my Winchester rifle than my .177 caliber pellet rifle.

You can shoot quietly at low cost. Finding low velocity shorts, CB and
BB caps can be difficult though. The BB caps I have are
Flobert-Patronen, made in Germany by Dynamil Nobel.


Jon

Don,
I think very few people have ever got to play with silencers for obvious
reasons, but I have been fortunate in that respect. I have not only played
with designing them, I have had the opportuity to shoot professionally built
silenced weapons. My experience includes revolvers, semi autos, rifles in
both forms and submachine guns in many calibers. First silenced or
suppressed weapons are not silent or even quiet. That is a wives tale. They
are quieter than without. As an example, on a 25 M range, 20 ft wide and
open at the top with concrete side walls, the shooter cannot safely shoot
without ear protection. There is an exception to that last statement and
that is the new MP7 from HK. This submachine gun CAN be used safely without
hearing protection. The sub 5mm round travels in the 900 MPS range.
Additionally, the sonic crack, although present, is very, very quiet. I
believe this performance is due to the very small round. Another observation
that I have made is the longer the silencer, the quieter the weapon is. As
far as action noise, yes it is there, but it is low volume and local. Loose
actions make more noise that tight ones. Plastic receivers are quieter than
all metal. Inverted cone designs are quieter than designs using packing.
Steve

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...
I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?

How about rifles that are not gas-actuated semiautos, i.e. bolt,
lever or pump actions? Perhaps it's not feasible to effectively
suppress the report of a rifle with supersonic muzzle velocity, which
(I think) includes most modern centerfire rifles.

I certainly have no need or desire for a silencer, but I'm curious.

On 21 Sep 2005 20:00:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On 21 Sep 2005 12:46:21 -0700, Larry Fishel wrote:

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

Could be. No interest either way, so I haven't looked into the details.


Not long ago...IRRC..the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was legal to
make your own machine gun. Just not for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

G

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 19:07:48 -0700, Jon Anderson
wrote:

Dave Hinz wrote:

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but
want to learn about.

I used to have a match grade heavy barrel Remington .22, forget the
exact model. I found this thing was almost silent shooting .22 standard
velocity shorts. CB caps were even quiter.

I have some BB caps (.22 cal ball and primer, no powder) and these are
quieter in my Winchester rifle than my .177 caliber pellet rifle.

You can shoot quietly at low cost. Finding low velocity shorts, CB and
BB caps can be difficult though. The BB caps I have are
Flobert-Patronen, made in Germany by Dynamil Nobel.


Jon
Cheaper Than Dirt has CB shorts, as well as primer only .22 shells
that are very quiet. The box says pistol ammunition but I run these
through my old .22 rifles. And Cabela's has .22 CB shorts on sale
right now. I think. Anyway, I'm gonna order some from Cabela's because
they have the best price I've ever seen on CB shorts.
ERS

Eric R Snow wrote:

I used to have a match grade heavy barrel Remington .22, forget the
exact model. I found this thing was almost silent shooting .22 standard
velocity shorts. CB caps were even quiter.

I have some BB caps (.22 cal ball and primer, no powder) and these are
quieter in my Winchester rifle than my .177 caliber pellet rifle.

You can shoot quietly at low cost. Finding low velocity shorts, CB and
BB caps can be difficult though. The BB caps I have are
Flobert-Patronen, made in Germany by Dynamil Nobel.


Jon

I bought some of the Aquila CB caps, $1.99/bx at CTD. They snap like a
cap gun. Shooting a railroad tie, the bullet stops flush with the surface.

I have tried them in 2 .22 automatic pistols, and an auto rifle (Marlin
60). They would not cycle the action in any of them. So I bought a cheap
Heritage Arms revolver, and that looks like the ticket for cheap
backyard taget shooting.

Rex B

Eric R Snow wrote:

Anyway, I'm gonna order some from Cabela's because
they have the best price I've ever seen on CB shorts.

Thanks for that info Eric! I've always bought ammo locally, and stuff
like this is hard to find around here.

Jon

In , on 09/21/05
at 02:22 PM, Dave Hinz said:

I certainly have no need or desire for a silencer, but I'm curious.

Same here. It's one of those toys that seems like more trouble and cost
than it's worth, but being a scientific type person I can't help but want
to learn about.

It's one of those things you don't think you need until you try one! On a
bolt action .22 with subsonic ammo, you can actually hear the firing pin
hit the rim - that's the loudest noise the rifle makes. It's MUCH quieter
than an air gun - even a plinking spring gun. It lets you shout 2 or 3
bunnies without spooking them all after the first shot. I once even got 4
out of 5 ( I was really mad I couldn't kill the fifth, but he was in a
tree & the backdrop wasn't safe) carrion crows in my top field. Carrion
crows are about as nasty, suspicious, keen eyed animals you can find (
apart perhaps from accountants)


-----------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------

Take a look at the Aquila rimfire ammo. They make a subsonic round
with a 60 grain bullet. Real quiet and packs quite a wallop. They
have an amazingly un-user friendly website. http://www.aguilaammo.com
is the company, to see the ammo you need to end up at
http://shop.sisna.com/centurionordna...Name=R imfire

Accuracy through a standard twist barrel is OK. For real performance
you need a slower rate of twist, but then you are getting into a
pricey rifle.

..22 SSS-Sniper Subsonic/Brick 500rds
$40.00 a brick + S/H
60gr Solid Point Lead Bullet. Velocity: 950fps. Energy: 120Ft-lb.

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Take a look at the Aquila rimfire ammo. They make a subsonic round
with a 60 grain bullet. Real quiet and packs quite a wallop. They
have an amazingly un-user friendly website. http://www.aguilaammo.com
is the company, to see the ammo you need to end up at
http://shop.sisna.com/centurionordna...Name=R imfire

Accuracy through a standard twist barrel is OK. For real performance
you need a slower rate of twist, but then you are getting into a
pricey rifle.


OK, you lost me there. Why would accuracy improve with a slower twist? The
Greenhill formula uses diameter and bullet length as input variables so
there should be no difference if the bullet is going 950 fps or 1400 fps.
If anything I would think that a 60 grain bullet would be longer than a
standard bullet (around 40 gr) and would need a faster twist.

Steve.

I didn't like the bottom section - status. Fed pushed back to 9th ...
I think the fix might be in.
I think the use of Commerce act to control anything we grow or make at home
is a far reach of a active government. Shades of a former "Waco" Treasury type.

Martin
Martin Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder



Gunner wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 20:00:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:


On 21 Sep 2005 12:46:21 -0700, Larry Fishel wrote:

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

Could be. No interest either way, so I haven't looked into the details.



Not long ago...IRRC..the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was legal to
make your own machine gun. Just not for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

G

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

You can build your own silencer IF you are in a state that allows individual
ownership of one. You fill out the form (ATF F 5320.1) and have it
checked/signed by a local CLEO and add the check for $200. After receiving
the approval back from ATF, you can then build the device. A licensed
manufacturer can build a device and has 24 hours to file the forms.
Respectfully,
Ron Moore

"Larry Fishel" wrote in message
ps.com...

I'd have to check with the people in the ATF and my local SO before
I'd
consider rolling my own silencer. They're not complex, but I'd need
to
make sure everything is cool before I did anything resembling that.

I think you would find the process a little onerous but I could be
wrong. I
just don't know your tolerance level for whatever bureaucratic falderal
is
involved to make any pronouncement. I am sure you would have to jump
through
hoops.

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:10:58 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

On 21 Sep 2005 20:00:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On 21 Sep 2005 12:46:21 -0700, Larry Fishel wrote:

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

Could be. No interest either way, so I haven't looked into the details.


Not long ago...IRRC..the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was legal to
make your own machine gun. Just not for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

G

Do they require the $1,500/yr fee to the ATF?

Hey, a client just sent a wee check (wonders never cease!) Are those
little (4' long) Mosin Nagant M44, 91-38, or 91-53s any good ($70
at Big 5 through Oct 24th)? Where can one find 7.62 x 54 ammo cheap?
The way I understand it, the "arsenal refinishing" included filling
scope holes. Are they easy to redo, JIC I want a nice scope on one?
Any tips on buying one?


----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:40:58 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:10:58 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

On 21 Sep 2005 20:00:39 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On 21 Sep 2005 12:46:21 -0700, Larry Fishel wrote:

Far as I know, it's a letter from the local SO stating that you're not a
schmuck (no problem there), and pay your tax stamp to the boys in the
sunglasses, and you're good to go. I just have better things to do with
that 200 dollars, for something that would essentially be a pointless
toy. (I have 30 acres in a rural part of Wisconsin, and the neighbors
don't mind when I shoot - more than once, they've come over to join in).

That's to BUY one. IIRC, you need a manufacturer's license to make your
own...

Could be. No interest either way, so I haven't looked into the details.


Not long ago...IRRC..the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was legal to
make your own machine gun. Just not for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

G

Do they require the $1,500/yr fee to the ATF?

Hey, a client just sent a wee check (wonders never cease!) Are those
little (4' long) Mosin Nagant M44, 91-38, or 91-53s any good ($70
at Big 5 through Oct 24th)?

Actually, they are very good for the most part. Id suggest though that
if you can afford one, get one of the Finn M-39s. Deadly accurate.

But yep...the MNs are decent weapons. The little Carbines are fun,
loud as hell, kick like a mule, but handy. Really handy. Will require
a new front sight though, as they were designed to be shot with the
bayonet extended and will shoot high with it retracted.

This may be of interest to you:

http://www.gunboards.com/forums/topi...OPIC_ID=125040


http://www.iguanasoft.com/~jeffersonian/m44.html
http://www.mosinnagant.net/global%20...ts/default.asp
http://www.surplusrifle.com/
http://www.surplusrifle.com/reviews/ncpmosin.asp
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...sin-nagant.htm
http://www.building-tux.com/dsmjd/tech/m1891m-n.htm
http://www.surplusrifle.com/mosincarbine/index.asp




Where can one find 7.62 x 54 ammo cheap?

http://www.ammoman.com/webstore_762x54R.htm
http://www.aimsurplus.com/acatalog/c..._7_62x54R.html
I prefer Yellow Tip in the MN..at least in my :several" M-39s

Lots of places on the Net to purchase mil surp ammo. Though Im having
a hell of a time finding decent 303 Brit ammo. Ive still got a couple
cans of HXP headstamped 303 (made in Greece), but hate to shoot it up
as its really good stuff and reloadable.


The way I understand it, the "arsenal refinishing" included filling
scope holes. Are they easy to redo, JIC I want a nice scope on one?
Any tips on buying one?

Bring a cleaning rod and a pocket full of swabs. Run it though the
barrel (some stores will allow this..others will not) and pick the one
with the brightest bore. Handle as many as you can..pay for the one
that :"feels" the best to you. Shrug..most of them are pretty much in
the same condition. They are supposed to be pre checked for any
headspace issues. If yours pierces the primer..take it back for an
exchange.

A Tula Arsenal 1944 is a good one. Shrug.

As for scoping the Nagant....wellllllll there is a problem.....

It uses a split bridge receiver so a side mount is the only way to go.
http://www.gunaccessories.com/Milita...gant/index.asp

Ive done several of these..mostly repairing those that kitchen table
types have ****ed things up using the above kit, which I Detest.

One is far better off making their own side mount and doing a real
bolt bend, or cut off and reweld, which is what I generally do if Im
going to scope an MN.


Or making a "scout rifle"configuration
http://www.surplusrifle.com/shooting...ifle/index.asp


Gunner






----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:14:22 -0700, Wally
wrote:

.22 SSS-Sniper Subsonic/Brick 500rds
$40.00 a brick + S/H
60gr Solid Point Lead Bullet. Velocity: 950fps. Energy: 120Ft-lb.

Which compared to high speed from kmart or walmart etc for $13 a
brick..is pricy indeed.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:20:39 GMT, "SteveF" wrote:


"Wally" wrote in message
.. .
Take a look at the Aquila rimfire ammo. They make a subsonic round
with a 60 grain bullet. Real quiet and packs quite a wallop. They
have an amazingly un-user friendly website. http://www.aguilaammo.com
is the company, to see the ammo you need to end up at
http://shop.sisna.com/centurionordna...Name=R imfire

Accuracy through a standard twist barrel is OK. For real performance
you need a slower rate of twist, but then you are getting into a
pricey rifle.


OK, you lost me there. Why would accuracy improve with a slower twist? The
Greenhill formula uses diameter and bullet length as input variables so
there should be no difference if the bullet is going 950 fps or 1400 fps.
If anything I would think that a 60 grain bullet would be longer than a
standard bullet (around 40 gr) and would need a faster twist.

Steve.

You are correct. It needs a slightly faster twist, even at the slower
velocity.

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:36:16 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:14:22 -0700, Wally
wrote:

.22 SSS-Sniper Subsonic/Brick 500rds
$40.00 a brick + S/H
60gr Solid Point Lead Bullet. Velocity: 950fps. Energy: 120Ft-lb.

Which compared to high speed from kmart or walmart etc for $13 a
brick..is pricy indeed.

Bi-Mart sold a brick of standard Remington 22LRs for $6.99.

Big 5 has (if they're not out of stock for 2 months like right now)
Wolf 7.62x54 for $9.95/20 or another brand for $14.95/20. Your
link to www.ammoman.com gives 780 round cases of Czech ammo for $89,
delivered, Wolf $139 for 500 rounds.

The www.surplusrifle.com has lots of good info, tasty tidbits. Thanks
for the links and info.


----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 13:00:24 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 07:36:16 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
quickly quoth:

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 18:14:22 -0700, Wally
wrote:

.22 SSS-Sniper Subsonic/Brick 500rds
$40.00 a brick + S/H
60gr Solid Point Lead Bullet. Velocity: 950fps. Energy: 120Ft-lb.

Which compared to high speed from kmart or walmart etc for $13 a
brick..is pricy indeed.

Bi-Mart sold a brick of standard Remington 22LRs for $6.99.

Big 5 has (if they're not out of stock for 2 months like right now)
Wolf 7.62x54 for $9.95/20 or another brand for $14.95/20. Your
link to www.ammoman.com gives 780 round cases of Czech ammo for $89,
delivered, Wolf $139 for 500 rounds.

The www.surplusrifle.com has lots of good info, tasty tidbits. Thanks
for the links and info.


G

My pleasure.

Gunner


----------------------------------------------------------------
* Blessed are those who can * Humorous T-shirts Online
* laugh at themselves, for they * Comprehensive Website Dev.
* shall never cease to be amused * http://www.diversify.com
----------------------------------------------------------------

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Fri, 23 Sep 2005 02:20:39 GMT, "SteveF" wrote:


"Wally" wrote in message
.. .
Take a look at the Aquila rimfire ammo. They make a subsonic round
with a 60 grain bullet. Real quiet and packs quite a wallop. They
have an amazingly un-user friendly website. http://www.aguilaammo.com
is the company, to see the ammo you need to end up at
http://shop.sisna.com/centurionordna...Name=R imfire

Accuracy through a standard twist barrel is OK. For real performance
you need a slower rate of twist, but then you are getting into a
pricey rifle.


OK, you lost me there. Why would accuracy improve with a slower twist? The
Greenhill formula uses diameter and bullet length as input variables so
there should be no difference if the bullet is going 950 fps or 1400 fps.
If anything I would think that a 60 grain bullet would be longer than a
standard bullet (around 40 gr) and would need a faster twist.

Steve.



Thanks SteveF. I wrote before I thought. What I should have said
(and really meant to say) was a faster rate of twist for a heavier
bullet, slower for a lighter bullet.

DeepDiver wrote:
"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...

I've read here that silencers are not compatible with revolvers.
The question of why that might be so has bugged me since I read it.
Why is that so? Does it have something to do with clearance between
cylinder (chamber) and barrel?


Yup, that's exactly what it has to do with. Remember that all sound is
simply pressure waves in an environmental medium (like air). The purpose of
a supressor (the correct term for a "silencer") is to take the
high-pressure, high-velocity gases at the muzzle (that are created by the
buring cartridge propellant), and simultaneiously reduce their pressure and
speed in a controlled manner to minimize the creation of sound pressure
waves in the air. It cannot do that if the burning gases are escaping to the
atmosphere at the cylinder gap.


Could you enclose the cylinder inside some type of shell the forced the
gases to go out the barrel? (a custom built gun and not a modification)
Would this cause the remaining rounds to cook off if the gases travelled
all around the cylinder?
Ken (who knows next to nothing about guns)

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:09:18 -0400, Ken Vale wrote:

Could you enclose the cylinder inside some type of shell the forced the
gases to go out the barrel? (a custom built gun and not a modification)
Would this cause the remaining rounds to cook off if the gases travelled
all around the cylinder?

It'd be a lot easier to just not use a design that is inherently
difficult to silence.

Ken (who knows next to nothing about guns)

No problem, and actually the Russian Nagant revolver does somewhat what
you describe, only by using the cartridge case itself to make the seal.

Let the record show that Gunner wrote back on
Thu, 22 Sep 2005 07:10:58 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking :

Could be. No interest either way, so I haven't looked into the details.


Not long ago...IRRC..the 9th Circuit Court ruled that it was legal to
make your own machine gun. Just not for sale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Stewart

The caveat is that you may do this as long as your construction is not
going to interfere with Interstate Commerce. Specifically, the guy was
barred from the legal purchase of a machine gun, so he was not "interfering
with interstate trade" by making one.
Of course, California had a few problems with the whole issue, but that
was a different case.

G

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

On 26 Sep 2005 19:09:02 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 14:09:18 -0400, Ken Vale wrote:

Could you enclose the cylinder inside some type of shell the forced the
gases to go out the barrel? (a custom built gun and not a modification)
Would this cause the remaining rounds to cook off if the gases travelled
all around the cylinder?

It'd be a lot easier to just not use a design that is inherently
difficult to silence.

Ken (who knows next to nothing about guns)

No problem, and actually the Russian Nagant revolver does somewhat what
you describe, only by using the cartridge case itself to make the seal.

http://www.buymilsurp.com/pictorials...pictorial.html

http://guns.connect.fi/rs/linx.html

http://users.skynet.be/HL-Editions/index.html


"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner