Talk:Silencer (firearms)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Firearms C‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Politics: American C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance). Conservatism C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Law C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It needs work, thanks for taking the initiative. Just be careful when deleting text that you do not wipe out any references, particularly named ones, as other sections may be relying on the information and they get hosed up as a result.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It may have been a previous editor, I rolled it back a bit to be safe.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. regards108.181.1.84 (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree with you completely. Do what you need to do, ping me if you need help with sources or formatting, but it seems like you have a good handle on it. Time's getting scarce for me again. Some advice, though, if you mention a brand name...some dirtbag socialist with only 2 nickels in his pocket will call it advertising. Mention the NFA laws in the US outside of 1 paragraph and people from countries where you need a license to see a picture of a firearm in a magazine will call it US-centric. If you say how nobody has ever been killed with a legally owned suppressor or mention that they are actually a safety device to protect hearing, the same types will accuse you of POV pushing. :) Just kidding, but not really.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. regards108.181.1.84 (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think of "progressivism as the new fascism", but think it is perfect for this article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that the perception of 'progress' today does not entirely concord with it's definition and in many ways I feel the same 108.181.1.84 and Mike. In reality however, progress is not an ideology, but seems to have become one of late. And much like democracy, if they were not skewed by politicians, lobbyists and others trying to market ideas and opinions, progress would be about improving the quality of life of all individuals. Not for a 'greater collective good', but for the personal well-being, at the individual level, of each person making up the society in question. Criminalising protective equipment over half-a-handful of people who might choose to use it for nefarious, and unintended purposes, is certainly not progress, regardless of how it may be defined.

I'm not advocating that every firearm be equipped with theses devices, nor do I think that this is the intent in being progressive. But at the very least allow and individual the liberty of choosing to make use of if the intent is to reduce harm. I think everyone will agree that in North America (USA, as well as Canada) we possess values like freedom and integrity, and in such a society hindering the will of individuals to protect themselves from work and sport related hazards is certainly not progress.

Basically it boils down to: hearing is important and protecting your hearing is the right thing to do because if you lose it you can't get it back. Being aware of this reality that, why would anyone (especially the government, who should be looking out for us) want to make it illegal for anyone else to protect themselves from hearing damage, especially if it is going to cost society millions of dollars? Is providing health care workers with jobs, health insurance and hearing aid companies with revenue by harming the general population considered progress?? I think progress is something that every individual does for themselves, it's not something others can do for you because the only person who knows what is good for you is yourself: not a politician who came to shake your hand around election time or a psychologist who sees you a couple hours a month. But ultimately progress, much like science and spirituality, is variable and it evolves. As we become more and more aware of our environment and the universe and how it functions, we learn new ways of doing things and improving how we can enjoy and appreciate everything life has to offer to us for as long as our bodies will allow it.

Based on this interpretation, I used the term 'progress' with the simple intent to indicate that, as in any other such situation: a few people\institutions decided to give it a try and got the ball rolling for the others who were uncertain about it. It seems to have demonstrated significant benefits in pretty much all instances with very few drawbacks, if any at all.

I'd like to hear what everyone has to say about this so we can make an informed decision on whether or not this is the correct term to use in this instance. It is my belief that this is the correct one but there may be better that I haven't considered. regards108.181.1.84 (talk) 16:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term to use is whatever has verifiable citation to corroborate its usage. I noticed that you removed a citation request tag without actually providing a citation. Referring to vaguely-defined "educated individuals, knowledgeable about firearms and law" is insufficient, because that falls under weasel words, which greatly undermines this article. This talk page is not citation, and your discussion with one other person is not a reference. I'd undo your edit, except it seems someone else has already edited out the contentious phrase, which I'm sure you'll insist on restoring at some point later.

The definition of "progressive" nor its appropriateness is not at issue here (not on my part anyway). The lack of supporting material is the problem. If you don't intend to improve the article with verifiable references, you should abstain from removing citation request tags. I'm not even asking that the phrase be deleted; I'm asking for detail on that point of view.

I'm not going to get into an edit war over this. If you restore the opinionated phrase, I will restore the citation request. If you then remove that citation request, I will solicit admin intervention, because this article is quickly falling into editorializing via contentious labels, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. — Samatict (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good questions. Doesn't answer all of them, but the following source is illuminating: http://emptormaven.com/2007/03/freebore-boost-effects/

Based on physics we can say that in theory, holding efficiency roughly constant between designs, the heating rate decreases with suppressor volume and increases with propellant mass. Radiation rates would be a second-order effect, but suppressors for heavier firing rates or cartridges are often run with "cozies" to prevent heat mirage during shooting, so that they can hardly radiate at all until the operator pauses and takes off the insulator to let them cool.Dbooksta (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Revolvers as a rule cannot be suppressed due to the cylinder. A few purpose built revolvers have been built to be suppressed but it is not the norm, so the front sight is not even an issue. On most pistols, a longer barrel with threads that extend beyond the slide are used. On rifles you have two basic methods: threaded and direct-connect. The threaded versions work like the previously mentioned pistol, screw the can onto the threads. Direct-connect attaches over an existing barrel device such as a flash suppressor or muzzle brake. There are either threads or grooves on these devices that allow quick attachment and detachment like the AAC Blackouts and SEI Vortex. A huge problem is source material. NFA items receive a fraction of the coverage that they need in the mainstream gun press, so the bulk of material is found on company websites, forums, blogs, etc. The socialists and hoplophobes are quick to tear that sort of material down.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:25, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do socialists have to do with this? What is wrong with you? ---Dagme (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Learning the science behind silencers on the range, is very thorough and in-depth article on this stuff as of 2014. Mvialt (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090418035925/http://campus.murraystate.edu:80/tsm/tsm118/Ch2/Ch2_7/Ch2_7.htm to http://campus.murraystate.edu/tsm/tsm118/Ch2/Ch2_7/Ch2_7.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Found an earlier Patent - filed 1980 - Adjustable sound suppressor for weapon

US 4384507 A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.141.51 (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• In October 2015, Arizona Congressman Matt Salmon introduced the Hearing Protection Act to remove suppressors from the NFA.^[1]

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)[reply]

• Legal regulation of suppressors varies widely around the world. In some nations, such as Finland, Norway and France, some or all types of suppressor are essentially unregulated and may be bought "over the counter" in retail stores or by mail-order.^[2]

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.

--Felsic2 (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think it should be removed, but one of your cohorts made a hobby out of creating full blown articles about proposed legislation. In fact one or two are still kicking, but that promotes your bias, so you are probably ok with it and I don't see you raising a stink over those. I have the print version and if I find the time, I will get the page numbers. From my recollection, countries may not be listed individually, just that certain countries have politicians that recognize these as safety devices as opposed to people in the US who want to see the hearing of shooters permanently damaged. You do realize that you are not supposed to plagiarize and are to write in a passive voice, not a word for word reiteration f source material unless it is a direct quote, correct?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut the personal remarks.
  • Fix the cite or delete it. Felsic2 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cutting personal remarks goes both ways, you said what I wrote was bullshit. You treat me respectfully and that's what I will show you. You give me a ration of shit and you get it back. While I'm at it, You don't give orders here, and should not be making threats; this is a collaborative effort so enough with the commands because it is getting tiresome.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Calling bullshit" is a common phrase questioning the legitimacy of a claim. It's not a personal comment. You didn't write the text in question. You added a citation to it that has now been questioned by two different editors over a year apart. If you don't care to fix it then I'll delete it and the source it's connected to.

Considering how often text about firearms is simply deleted summarily on flimsy grounds, I think that I'm taking a very moderate approach here. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• its like stepping in dogshit, to read what the two of you are writing. i would appreciate it, if you would knock it off.

content about pending/failed legislation is generally driven by RECENTISM and years later no one cares about any specific bill failing or dying in committee.

So the first bullet is that kind of thing and should be removed.

The second bullet is encyclopedic and good. If there are sources that would support similarly encyclopedic content on actual federal/state/local legislation in the US that would be useful. Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second bullet, the source is what's being questioned. Felsic2 (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

   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)[reply]

Improvised silencer might be a better term. Just saying.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or should that be "improvised suppressor?" ;) But seriously, it is a common topic. There are references to homemade silencers and to things like pillows and potatoes used for the purpose, perhaps ineffectively. In order to protect the hearing of assassins and hunters, we should report this information. Felsic2 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silencer is the correct technical and legal term. I own 15 of them and every Form 3 or Form 4 has "Box 4b" listing "SILENCER" as the type of firearm (yeah, they are considered firearms under US law and TSA agents will look through the tube to make sure it is not loaded when you fly with them). Suppressor is slang just like can, hush puppy, muffler, etc. This guy knows a thing or two about them, I've heard:[5]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article, but I don't see anything about ghetto silencers or other improvised items. Felsic2 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words, but I was referring to the term suppressor as being slang and silencer as the proper term.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I started a section with the sources I could find on the web. Felsic2 (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is unsourced; moving here, per WP:PRESERVE

Europe

• In Austria, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited according to §17 of the Austrian Weapons Law.
• In the Czech Republic suppressors are, according to §4 of Weapons and Ammunition Law, considered an A-class weapon, which means a special exception is needed to possess them. This makes suppressors illegal for any practical purpose.
• In Germany suppressors are handled in the same way as firearms; if a firearm requires a specific permit, the corresponding suppressor requires the identical permit as well. For example, suppressors for freely available airguns are also freely available. Suppressors are currently not specified exactly by means of a certain minimum attenuating level in dB which separates them from improved flash hiders or advanced muzzle brakes. Firearm suppressors require a "legal need" to own them, just like the firearms they are designed for.
• In Hungary, the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited for civilians.
• In Italy the purchase or possession of a suppressor is prohibited except for military personnel (Law 110/75 Art. 2).
• In the Netherlands suppressors are only legal if used for airguns. All other civilian use and ownership is prohibited by law.
• In Norway, suppressors are not regulated.
• (alt) In Norway the sale of suppressors is not regulated in any way. And anyone can buy one over the counter. Some distributors take it upon themselves to check that the buyer has a Firearms Licence for a suitable weapon.
• In Poland, suppressors are not classified as "important weapon parts". Therefore, they are completely legal in all calibers, requiring no registration or permit. However the Polish Firearms and Ammunition Act (art.10, p. 5) states that firearms ownership approval cannot be issued for firearms equipped with silencer or adapted to be used with silencer.
• In Romania, the purchase or possession of suppressors is illegal for civilians. Only military and law enforcement personnel are authorized to use them.
• In the Russian Federation, ...(left sourced content) The law lacks any straight definition of what a "device for noiseless shooting" is, or what decibel level is considered to be "noiseless", therefore it is completely up to the expert investigating the device whether it would be considered a "device for noiseless shooting" or not. That concerns not only specifically designed sound suppressors, but such devices as muzzle brakes, compensators and flash suppressors.
• In Turkey, civilian purchase, sale or possession of suppressors are strictly prohibited, with possible jail terms of up to 25 years if convicted. Suppressors can only be purchased by military personnel when approved by the officer in charge of the base armory. Individual law enforcement officers are not eligible to purchase or possess suppressors unless these are issued by a local agency, in which case these would be registered to the General Directorate of Security in Ankara.
• In Ukraine, suppressors are legal and not regulated.

North America

• In Canada, ... (left sourced content) special licensing is required for businesses to import and sell suppressors, and they are typically only available to law enforcement, conservation agencies, and the military.

Oceania

• In Australia, suppressors are prohibited for civilians unless authorised under a commissioner's permit.
• New Zealand has no restrictions on the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of suppressors.

-- Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not in Glen's book, but in a few pieces by Al Paulson.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I might have been able to find that myself if someone hadn't thoughtlessly changed "silencer" to "suppressor".[9] I changed it back to the original. Felsic2 (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I missed that.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You're probably right, about this and the other two sections. Remember that we should only add material that's verifiable in published sources. Felsic2 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

.22 S is not .22 LR.

Frequency analyzers are described in professional silencer literature, and frequency shifting is part of several patents. It's described in secondary sources such as Paulson's books, cited here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The request to rename this article to Silencer (firearms) has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Suppressor → Silencer (firearms) – Suppressor is very obviously a neologism that was almost unheard of in this context until a very recent public information campaign by the NRA and various trade groups that began in only 2011. The WP:COMMONNAME policy requires that article titles reflect that silencer is, and has been, the common name since the device was invented in 1902. Silencer is also the correct legal term, and was the correct technical term until the US gun industry decided to change it for public relations purposes. The silencer industry trade group the American Suppressor Association didn't think to get on board with the new term until 2014; before that they were the American Silencer Association, what with the word silencer being in the name of many of the trade group's member companies and the name of most of their products. You'd think the people who make the things would know the "technically correct" name of their own product, but they changed because a public relations memo got passed around. The Wikipedia argument for why suppressor is more "correct" is that silencers do not eliminate 100% of noise, but that is not how English works. The UK English term for muffler is silencer, with no regard for the obvious fact that car silencers/mufflers do not make cars "silent". Worse, any dictionary can confirm that "suppress" does not imply any lesser degree of silence than silencer, or muffler for that matter. The verbs silence, suppress or muffle all mean to quieten, curtail, or reduce, without necessarily requiring that the object is curtailed 100%. The point of this name game is not to create any more or less technical accuracy in terminology, but only to manipulate public emotions and feelings.

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)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and MOS:EUPHEMISM. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 04:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• What title was this article created under? There was a confusing history merge in December 2012 and I can't work out what exactly happened. I'm not sure I buy the neologism argument since this article lead with "A silencer or suppressor" back in 2003. I don't think you can blame a 2011 PR exercise for that one. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - "Silencer" is the euphemism, used in movies/TV which depict a device which does not actually exist. Real guns are really loud, they can't be "silenced", but they can be "suppressed" - and the industry term is "suppressor". This move would communicate poor knowledge to the public and perpetuate a myth. Perhaps we should develop a "silencer" article as a place to document the fictional gun attachment found in movies and TV? Even if you were to argue that "silencer" has a slight liead onc commonality, WP:NATURALDIS suggests Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title as a way to avoid using a parenthetical disambiguation. -- Netoholic @ 12:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Silence and suppress mean the same thing. See any dictionary. It’s like saying erasers don’t exist because they leave smudges behind. It’s why we distinguish between a vacuum and a perfect vacuum. The idea that silencer was made up by movies and TV is contradicted by all the sources. It’s true that media depictions are inaccurate, but if we had to change the name of everything that movies get wrong we’d have to start by renaming sex. —17:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Silence deals only in sound. This device also suppresses the visible flash of firing. That's why "silencer" is a wholly inaccurate (or at least incomplete) euphamism. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and part of that is to provide reliable and accurate knowledge. Moving this article perpetuates the fiction over the fact. -- Netoholic @ 08:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to waste space listing dictionary content, but here goes:

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The issue is no whether one or the other is more 'technically' correct nor whether there is a public relations campaign in support of one or the other. Silencer is the more commonly used word across the board, and the more natural title. I've noted the suggestion at WP:NATURALDIS but I do not think 'suppressor' is sufficiently common to justify using it to disambig the subject. Interestingly, I never knew a muffler was called a silencer in the UK (or elsewhere) demonstrating how regional differences and personal knowledge can make these discussions difficult. Nonetheless, I support. Shadow007 (talk) 07:15, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support and possibly move Suppressor (disambiguation) across baseline In ictu oculi (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to the obvious common name. ONR (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Silencer is the proper legal name and term used by its inventor. Suppressor is a slang term developed in the 1960s.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]