I was watching some of the videos using a surpressed 22 with CCI minimags. I'm wondering why not use a subsonic round? Is it just to compare volumes?
Suppressors Quick suppressor question, noobish...
- Thread starter SledDog
- Start date
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
MiniMags are just a very common, and considered by many to be the gold standard for 22lr ammo. Its probably all he had on hand. People use all kinds of 22lr ammo for youtube dirt shooting vid's
However, subsonic ammo usually doesnt cycle reliably, because not many mfgr's make decent subsonic ammo. The most commonly found subsonic 22lr is that shit product remington cranks out (much like everything else they make)
MiniMags are just a very common, and considered by many to be the gold standard for 22lr ammo. Its probably all he had on hand. People use all kinds of 22lr ammo for youtube dirt shooting vid's
However, subsonic ammo usually doesnt cycle reliably, because not many mfgr's make decent subsonic ammo. The most commonly found subsonic 22lr is that shit product remington cranks out (much like everything else they make)
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
..
It is actually a good question and mostly misunderstood.
The five sources of firearm noise
1. Muzzle blast from exiting gases (propellant and static air)
2. The SS signature of the projectile.
3. The noise associated with the action
4. The noise created by the operator.
5. The impact noise.
The can is able to only effect three of these potential sources:
1. The muzzle blast.
2. If a barrel integral, porting can effect SS projectile signature.
3. If Neilson (pistol) is capable of averting cycling, action noise.
1. Blast
This is the primary role of the can (as well as muzzle flash). The blast noise should always be judged without subsonic projectiles. Blast performance should be rated with full loads as the SS signature of the projectile is a seperate noise event. Only with full loads can the csuppressor be judge as handling the resulting gas of full loads appropriately. If a can cannot handle full loads as related to muzzle blast and is fully dependant on subsonic loads, it has failed in is primary role. Poor designs require subsonics for blast performance.
Interestingly, not all can designs reveal quieter blast measurements with subsonic rounds. Some cans require high velocity .22s to perform best in blast. These are almost without exception integrated designs. The reason is the integrals porting systems are perfectly tuned to deliver as much projectile energy as possible at muzzle end. The full load gases are "tapped" off precisely by a tuned port(s) providing for just barely sub transonic velocities when exiting the baffle sets and end cap. As such, they are tuned with a specific load, almost always hi velocity. With these systems maximum blast performance, maximum subsonic power and subsonic projectile flight signature is assured. Using subsonic rounds in tuned integrals will obviously eliminate projectile signature but can increase blast noise as the baffles themselves may not have the required gas pressures at turbulance and capture to work properly. Odd as it may seem, subsonics can resulting in overall louder blast measurements. Then there is chamber design (loose might require full loads to seal the brass and eliminate back pop).
So why show a suppressed weapon firing both SS and subsonic ammunition?
With a blast can, it will, with few exceptions, be quieter.
As to minimags? In the best of instances, the can is so efficient that the additional gas volumes of the mag load can be appropriately handled in regard to blast noise. SS projectile signature should still be present, if not...ask "is this an integral design?"
A good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUGW-NuBfM
First and foremost, all video recording cannot capture any sound well on youtube. You cannot judge the true noise on youtube of anything.
But...
Though the ammunition in this example is not specifically named, we can still hear allot about this design.
The integral design shown is ported, but as to if he is shooting full load .22s, I cannot tell, and it is important.
Also, within the first 5 rounds (the quietest rounds) if you listen closely (turn the volume up) you can still here a high pitched signature in the woods. THis occurs whether the bolt is allowed to cycle or not. Listen for it. That tells a designer that the round is transonic and that the barrel porting is either not correct for the ammo, or the ammo is not what what the integral was tuned for. I'll say it straight out, these rounds are still SS.
The blast can seen at the end here. IMO, Poor.
There is more. It is very important as to how the barrel is ported. Swiss cheese days are over! The best designs use a single port that actually deliver the tapped gas to the baffle sets as an important part of suppressor. It actually arrives first! I have no idea if this design does this.
Lastly, integral designs like this can add accuracy if the barrel is placed in compression by the external envelope. I have no idea if this design does that.
Remember integral designs should be the quietest of any and all .22 designs. Blast, Projectile and, with a bolt or slide lock, Action!
..
..
It is actually a good question and mostly misunderstood.
The five sources of firearm noise
1. Muzzle blast from exiting gases (propellant and static air)
2. The SS signature of the projectile.
3. The noise associated with the action
4. The noise created by the operator.
5. The impact noise.
The can is able to only effect three of these potential sources:
1. The muzzle blast.
2. If a barrel integral, porting can effect SS projectile signature.
3. If Neilson (pistol) is capable of averting cycling, action noise.
1. Blast
This is the primary role of the can (as well as muzzle flash). The blast noise should always be judged without subsonic projectiles. Blast performance should be rated with full loads as the SS signature of the projectile is a seperate noise event. Only with full loads can the csuppressor be judge as handling the resulting gas of full loads appropriately. If a can cannot handle full loads as related to muzzle blast and is fully dependant on subsonic loads, it has failed in is primary role. Poor designs require subsonics for blast performance.
Interestingly, not all can designs reveal quieter blast measurements with subsonic rounds. Some cans require high velocity .22s to perform best in blast. These are almost without exception integrated designs. The reason is the integrals porting systems are perfectly tuned to deliver as much projectile energy as possible at muzzle end. The full load gases are "tapped" off precisely by a tuned port(s) providing for just barely sub transonic velocities when exiting the baffle sets and end cap. As such, they are tuned with a specific load, almost always hi velocity. With these systems maximum blast performance, maximum subsonic power and subsonic projectile flight signature is assured. Using subsonic rounds in tuned integrals will obviously eliminate projectile signature but can increase blast noise as the baffles themselves may not have the required gas pressures at turbulance and capture to work properly. Odd as it may seem, subsonics can resulting in overall louder blast measurements. Then there is chamber design (loose might require full loads to seal the brass and eliminate back pop).
So why show a suppressed weapon firing both SS and subsonic ammunition?
With a blast can, it will, with few exceptions, be quieter.
As to minimags? In the best of instances, the can is so efficient that the additional gas volumes of the mag load can be appropriately handled in regard to blast noise. SS projectile signature should still be present, if not...ask "is this an integral design?"
A good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBUGW-NuBfM
First and foremost, all video recording cannot capture any sound well on youtube. You cannot judge the true noise on youtube of anything.
But...
Though the ammunition in this example is not specifically named, we can still hear allot about this design.
The integral design shown is ported, but as to if he is shooting full load .22s, I cannot tell, and it is important.
Also, within the first 5 rounds (the quietest rounds) if you listen closely (turn the volume up) you can still here a high pitched signature in the woods. THis occurs whether the bolt is allowed to cycle or not. Listen for it. That tells a designer that the round is transonic and that the barrel porting is either not correct for the ammo, or the ammo is not what what the integral was tuned for. I'll say it straight out, these rounds are still SS.
The blast can seen at the end here. IMO, Poor.
There is more. It is very important as to how the barrel is ported. Swiss cheese days are over! The best designs use a single port that actually deliver the tapped gas to the baffle sets as an important part of suppressor. It actually arrives first! I have no idea if this design does this.
Lastly, integral designs like this can add accuracy if the barrel is placed in compression by the external envelope. I have no idea if this design does that.
Remember integral designs should be the quietest of any and all .22 designs. Blast, Projectile and, with a bolt or slide lock, Action!
..
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
If shot out of a pistol (<5" barrel or so) most HV ammo will still stay subsonic. If the video is of a pistol then the Minimags are probably still subsonic anyways. And reliable and common.
If shot out of a pistol (<5" barrel or so) most HV ammo will still stay subsonic. If the video is of a pistol then the Minimags are probably still subsonic anyways. And reliable and common.
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
That depends on barrel length. Get your MKIII shortened to 4 1/2" and pretty much everything will be subsonic.
That's why Walther's crappy little P-22 is so popular with suppressor owners: 3 1/2" barrel renders everything subsonic.
That depends on barrel length. Get your MKIII shortened to 4 1/2" and pretty much everything will be subsonic.
That's why Walther's crappy little P-22 is so popular with suppressor owners: 3 1/2" barrel renders everything subsonic.
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
No kidding?
Well, to some extent, each gun is a law unto itself.
My friend's uncle has an integrally suppressed MKII, it apparently requires subs.
You're not talking FRP, are you
No kidding?
Well, to some extent, each gun is a law unto itself.
My friend's uncle has an integrally suppressed MKII, it apparently requires subs.
You're not talking FRP, are you
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
Your friend's uncle's integral should be subsonic by proper design, who's is it?
In the VOL. 9, NO. 4 issue of GUNS & AMMO magazine, Bob Milek wrote an article titled: BARREL LENGTH VS VELOCITY, where he took a number of barrels and guns and cut down the barrels in one inch increments, measuring the velocity loss at each step of the process for a number of centerfires as well as the 22LRs. It's a very interesting article. Here are the velocities recorded for the 22LR starting at 14 inches and going down to 4 inches.
Host was Contender.
14" = 1,105 fps.
13" = 1,106
12" = 1,110
11" = 1,089
10" = 1,114
9" = 1,077
8" = 1,063
7" = 1,057
6" = 1,024
5" = ..959
4" = ..927 fps.
The 11 inch velocity was an anomoly which turns up from time to time in nearly all firearms testing. As can be seen, any barrel length between 6 and 10 inches will produce very acceptable velocities and energies with the 22LR. Different brands of ammo will produce some minor velocity variations, but not enough to make all that much of a difference in performance. The above tests were conducted with Winchester HV Solids.
4.5" in Ruger Mark I, II is about right for everything except Stingers. THe big change in the Mark III (aside from the goofy stuff) was the chamber, you definately want HV in seal up in the Mark III as that chamber is just short of sloppy.
Remember, subs are usually more expensive, filthy, uncoated/plated and far less stable. Avoid them by design if you can.
Your friend's uncle's integral should be subsonic by proper design, who's is it?
In the VOL. 9, NO. 4 issue of GUNS & AMMO magazine, Bob Milek wrote an article titled: BARREL LENGTH VS VELOCITY, where he took a number of barrels and guns and cut down the barrels in one inch increments, measuring the velocity loss at each step of the process for a number of centerfires as well as the 22LRs. It's a very interesting article. Here are the velocities recorded for the 22LR starting at 14 inches and going down to 4 inches.
Host was Contender.
14" = 1,105 fps.
13" = 1,106
12" = 1,110
11" = 1,089
10" = 1,114
9" = 1,077
8" = 1,063
7" = 1,057
6" = 1,024
5" = ..959
4" = ..927 fps.
The 11 inch velocity was an anomoly which turns up from time to time in nearly all firearms testing. As can be seen, any barrel length between 6 and 10 inches will produce very acceptable velocities and energies with the 22LR. Different brands of ammo will produce some minor velocity variations, but not enough to make all that much of a difference in performance. The above tests were conducted with Winchester HV Solids.
4.5" in Ruger Mark I, II is about right for everything except Stingers. THe big change in the Mark III (aside from the goofy stuff) was the chamber, you definately want HV in seal up in the Mark III as that chamber is just short of sloppy.
Remember, subs are usually more expensive, filthy, uncoated/plated and far less stable. Avoid them by design if you can.
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
I used to own an Urbach interegal MKII and 10/22 which I sold to a buddy, the MKII would run Velocitors subsonic believe it or not and CCI mini-mags all day long sub. biggest mistake was selling those Urbachs. I just bought the last 3 from HK Specialists before Murray was shut down by the BATFE
I used to own an Urbach interegal MKII and 10/22 which I sold to a buddy, the MKII would run Velocitors subsonic believe it or not and CCI mini-mags all day long sub. biggest mistake was selling those Urbachs. I just bought the last 3 from HK Specialists before Murray was shut down by the BATFE
Re: Quick suppressor question, noobish...
Alright, thanks all for the thorough explanations. Much more to think about than I thought. I really dig the science side of things.
Alright, thanks all for the thorough explanations. Much more to think about than I thought. I really dig the science side of things.
