Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Difference Between A Supressor And Silencer


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Sgt

Sgt

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eastern TN
  • Interests:Militaria, Chess, Tools, Sherlock Holmes, Printmaking, UFOs, Ghosts, Electronics, Comic Books, Long walks in the rain, with my Savage 1928a1. (just kidding on the last one; it doesn't have to be raining) -- Ralph

Posted 19 February 2006 - 12:13 AM

I did a search on this site for Thompson supressors but wasn't able to find too much info. I thought I'd ask you guys a few questions. First, what is the difference between a supressor and silencer? Can you legally manufacture these or do they have to be already in the registration system? Are there any Thompson suppressors out there?
  • 0

#2 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 19 February 2006 - 01:08 AM

I don't think there is a difference.... Just semantics I believe... GP4 thinks otherwise I believe so hopefully he will chime in.... If he is not to busy trying to outbid me..... nono.gif

cut and paste below


Silencer and Suppressor General Info
General suppressor/silencer information provided by AWC Systems Technologies:
A sound suppressor is designed to be most effective with a given firearm and cartridge. The main purpose of a sound suppressor is to reduce the muzzle blast, which is the most significant portion of the noise. Muzzle blast is caused by high pressure gases suddenly escaping from the end of the barrel into the atmosphere as the bullet exits. Reducing the pressure results in less sound generated. Pressure is reduced by increasing the volume for gas expansion, reducing the gas temperature (cooling), delaying gas exit through trapping and turbulence, and by a combination of these technologies. How well a given suppressor works on a given weapon depends on how efficiently these goals are accomplished.



  • 0

#3 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 19 February 2006 - 02:53 AM

Sgt,

Suppressor/silencers can still be made for civilian consumption, but make sure that your state will allow them if you want to purchase one.

Some states allow MGs, but don't allow suppressors/silencers.

As far as I know, any NFA weapon (or device) can still be manufactured and sold to civilians EXCEPT machineguns.

Ironically, supressors and short-barrel shotguns seem to NFA weapons that states like the least (even more than MGs. ohmy.gif )

The following is a list of NFA weapons allowed in each state (copied from Western Firearms website.) Check with your state to be sure the chart is up to date.


user posted image

  • 0

#4 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:30 AM

I own a whole bunch of suppressors. I don't think a Thompson suppressor would be that interesting because in general 45 suppressors are not all that quiet without water, they would add weight to an already heavy gun, you would have a hard time designing a bilock type of mount for the Cutts Compensator(I ain't unscrewing my Cutts, ask Doug Richardson why) and the bolt slamming back and forth would probably be pretty loud even if the suppressor was a wet KAC can.

BTW a suppressor is the same thing as a silencer.
  • 0

#5 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:37 AM

Here is a page from the 1923 Auto-Ordnance catalog that shows the only suppressor (AO called it a "silencer") that was offered as an option for the Thompson by Auto-Ordnance. I have also seen pictures of Thompsons from WWII that were equipped with field expedient suppressors.

user posted image

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  • 0

#6 giantpanda4

giantpanda4

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2061 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Howell, MI 48855
  • Interests:Mechanical toys - cars, instruments, and of course - guns. The 1921-28 thompsons are the epitomy of perfection for a mechanical device that fills all my interests!

Posted 19 February 2006 - 08:47 AM

Z3 is right... but I'm not outbidding you (yet ph34r.gif )!

There is no difference - but there is technically no such thing as a "silencer". All devices of this nature supress the sound, no one can eliminate it. Many are efficient enough that all you think you hear is the bolt slamming and the cases hitting the pavement, but they have supressed the bang to a point where it is lower than the other noises, and it is not really gone.

Read Doug Richardson's book on supressors (Doug is the one I was paraphrasing when I said no such thing as a silencer...!). I highly recommend it for anyone remotely interested in quieting a Thompson. He has done the homework, why reinvent the wheel.


  • 0

#7 NotDeaf

NotDeaf

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 122 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:02 AM


Hey SGT ...

Here's a web site with a good forum about Silencer/Suppressors, someone on AR15.Com posted a threaded when he built hi silencer on a Form1, which I would not recommend doing ….. posting the building on a web site, he screwed up the suppressor, wrote the ATF and the change he wanted to make would have cost him another $200.00

http://www.silencertests.com/

  • 0

#8 Bounty1

Bounty1

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 130 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:38 AM

I go with the suppressor definition to be technically correct. Also that they only suppress/silence the sound of the gases, and not the sonic boom or crack that a faster than sound projectile makes. So a suppressor for a .45ACP is more efficient than a 9mm one, but only because of the external ballistics of the bullet itself. Some pistols in the past, to be used with a suppressor, had an option of locking the slide to eliminate the sound of the action. I think the Chi-Comms had/have one like this.
Obviously, suppressors for things like .223 can't silence the "crack" of the bullet, but by suppressing the sound of the shot, it is difficult to tell from which direction it came by ear, although the US now has electronic gear, being used in Iraq, that can pinpoint where a shot came from, even if suppressed. It's being used with the sniper teams.
Also, what "makes" a suppressor is a bit problematic for ATFE. When I bought a MAC-10 in .45, there wasa gizmo you could get, <_< referred to as a "pop suppressor", which when screwed on the barrel, allowed you to then screw on a two-liter plastic soda bottle. This suppressed the sound pretty well for about 50 shots until it started to disintegrate. So should every 2-liter soda container be registered with BATFE as a suppressor?
  • 0

#9 Merry Ploughboy

Merry Ploughboy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 888 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:53 AM

A suppressor is what you buy or make (after proper ATF approval, of course).

A silencer is what Hollywood uses on TV and in movies.
  • 0

#10 kilroyjones

kilroyjones

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 185 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 01:29 PM

Just to throw a little gas on the fire... You could also call them mufflers as they muffle the sound of exhuast gas. Similar to the muffler on engines biggrin.gif

I have heard that factory suppressed MP-5s from HK have holes drilled in the barrel. The holes bleed of gas, thus lowering the velocity of the bullet. The shooter can use standard ammo instead of sub-sonic, and still eliminate the sonic crack of the bullet.

I know an agent with the Kansas Beuare(sp) of Investigation. He went to school to learn to fire the MP-5. In Kansas LE can have full auto, mere citzens are verboten. I aked him if they used suppressed MP's as I was curious as to how loud they are in real life. The agent told me that the way the Ks. law is written not even LE can have a suppressed weapon. The LE's were trying to get the law rewritten for thier use.

KJ
  • 0

#11 Bounty1

Bounty1

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 130 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 01:29 PM

Just a quick comment on bureaucratic Napoleans....They're everywhere. I had the same problem in TX when I inquired about getting a full-auto. Called the cops; said I couldn't do it. Was young and stupid at the time so I believed them. That cost me a couple of years of trying.
Also, got a friend in GA, gun-friendly. CLEO would sign off on his MAC-10, but not on his suppressor. Said he "just didn't believe people should have them." (Screw the law, I guess) He got some gun-friendly judge to sign-off on the suppressor. But the A-holes are all over.
  • 0

#12 Whiskey Brother

Whiskey Brother

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 136 posts

Posted 19 February 2006 - 02:31 PM

Just what exactly is the problem with a firearm suppressor that it needs to be so heavily regulated? I once heard the answer that if someone gets shot, (murdered) they would be able to know about it because of the "BANG".

I'm confused. Isn't murder already a crime? If the perp doesn't care about the law governing life, what makes anybody in their right mind think that the perp will obey a law about doing it with VOLUME, or doing it with a muffler?

And what if he just wraps a pillow around his gun, or sticks the muzzle right into his victim? (Which makes the poor saps body the silencer...)

So, why exactly are firearm suppressors illegal again?
blink.gif

Edited by Whiskey Brother, 19 February 2006 - 02:31 PM.

  • 0

#13 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 19 February 2006 - 02:36 PM

PhilOhio,

I do not know the specifics for Delaware (or most states for that matter.)

I do understand that many states do allow NFA weapons, but people get caught up in the local level red-tape.

Fortunantly here (in Tennessee) we seem to have a "must sign" law on the CLEO letter. This is a state law that makes it manditory for the CLEO to sign the letter unless there is a valid reason to decline (ie past criminal record, etc.)

I have never been able to find where this law is written in the TN law books, but I do know that I never met with any opposition as far as getting a CLEO sign off for my NFA stuff. I live in Memphis, so I deal with big city government (well about as big as it gets in TN) and I have never had any problem getting the letter or fingerprints.

I wish it were that easy for you guys in Delaware (and other states.)

It is my understanding that a California citizen can obtain a transfer on a MG, but good luck getting past the local government. sad.gif

Norm

  • 0

#14 Bounty1

Bounty1

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 130 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 February 2006 - 03:20 PM

As far as stupidity on the local level, how about the legisaltor in VA who brought up a bill to make carrying a "concealed" machete a crime, because of all the machete attacks they've been having with MS-13. Has anyone tried "concealing" a machete lately? Tough trick!
Or CA having a law saying if you wear a "bulletproof" vest in the commison of a felony you get an extra 5 years. Let's see, How does that go.....I'm getting ready to rob a bank...stolen pistol? check! Stolen shotgun? check! Stolen car? check! Bulletproof vest? Uh-oh! I can't take that. I'll get an extra five years if I get caught!
  • 0

#15 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 19 February 2006 - 03:58 PM

Bounty1,

There is no shortage of stupid laws (or stupid people!)
  • 0

#16 Ron A

Ron A

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helena, Montana
  • Interests:Collector of Thompson guns &amp; items&lt;br&gt;Colt single actions&lt;br&gt;Native American items - pre 1900

Posted 19 February 2006 - 05:46 PM

The list is out of date - we were able in Montana to get legislature passed two sessions back (4 years ago) that allows silencer/suppressors ownership - we had a AG several years prior that took the position that outlawed Maxum type of suppressors - not clear what that covered and the legislation was supported by local law enforcement.

tongue.gif
  • 0

#17 Mike Hammer

Mike Hammer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 768 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Interests:Travel, sun worshiper, margaritas, hot chicks, painting, scuba diving, movies, collecting movie memorabilia and autographs, guns, hot chicks, micro-beers, hot chicks, and did I say hot chicks?

Posted 19 February 2006 - 06:05 PM

Whiskey Breath, oops, I mean Brother, I belive suppressors were originally regulated (or banned in some states) because of the poaching of game that was taking place and not because of anything more sinister, like what has been depicted in film and television for decades. In the early part of the 20th century you could order a maxum type suppressor for your gun from the sears catalog! While I enjoy using suppressors on my macs, I would never even consider trying one for my Thompson, I like to hear my Thompson "ROAR"! soapbox.gif

Mike Hammer
  • 0

#18 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 19 February 2006 - 09:37 PM

QUOTE (NotDeaf @ Feb 19 2006, 09:02 AM)
Hey SGT ...

Here's a web site with a good forum about Silencer/Suppressors, someone on AR15.Com posted a threaded when he built hi silencer on a Form1, which I would not recommend doing ….. posting the building on a web site, he screwed up the suppressor, wrote the ATF and the change he wanted to make would have cost him another $200.00

http://www.silencertests.com/

Be wary of Silencertests, as its owned by a dealer who is a cheerleader for his pet company and is clearly biased in his opinions. His testing methods have been called into question. Run far, far away....



  • 0

#19 Waffen Und Bier

Waffen Und Bier

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Like the name says "Guns and beer" (and really hot chicks who like guns and beer).

Posted 19 February 2006 - 10:53 PM

Same critter. Sir Hiram called them "silencers," as does ATF on the Form 1 and Form 4, as does Federal and Florida law.

  • 0

#20 Whiskey Brother

Whiskey Brother

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 136 posts

Posted 21 February 2006 - 09:14 AM

QUOTE (Mike Hammer @ Feb 19 2006, 06:05 PM)
Whiskey Breath, oops, I mean Brother, I belive suppressors were originally regulated (or banned in some states) because of the poaching of game that was taking place and not because of anything more sinister, like what has been depicted in film and television for decades. In the early part of the 20th century you could order a maxum type suppressor for your gun from the sears catalog! While I enjoy using suppressors on my macs, I would never even consider trying one for my Thompson, I like to hear my Thompson "ROAR"! soapbox.gif

Mike Hammer

So, what you are saying is that if you poach any game with a silencer, the punishment should be 10 years in jail? (Which is what California law currently pushes for on this Mala Prohibita inanimate object.)

Is poaching still a major concern in the United States?

With all of Governments "apparent" concern for my safety, such as seat belt and helmet laws, OSHA, and all the rest, you would think they would be equally concerned about my hearing and pass laws requiring the use of a suppressor on firearms.

After all, I'm sure we are all aware of how the passing of more laws having to do with personal security and individual liberties is beneficial to us...

Right?

Even though it is not itself a firearm, a suppressor should fall under that clause covered within the Bill of Rights under article 2, specifically the part where it says "Shall not be infringed".

As for Maxim type silencers appearing in the Sears Catologue back in the day, you have to remember that this was a period of US history where the word "Freedom" meant something.

Nowadays if you want a silencer out of the Sears Catalogue, you have to look under the words "Lawnmower engine muffler", or "Pillows", in order to find what you are looking for...

I'm in full agreement with you regarding their use on Thompsons, I prefer the "roar" myself. But for target shooting or rat dispatching in your backyard with .22 shorts, one would definetly not want to freak the neighbors out with non-suppressed shots. If I'm not hurting anybody else, then I see no reason why this absurd tax law should remain on the books since it does not raise any significant tax revenue for the Government, and actually infringes on personal liberties like some sort of modern day Jim Crow Law.


As for the "Whiskey Breath" comment, I only drink a few shots of Wild Turkey on my Birthday each year, and that aint for 6 months yet...

Ever heard of a little incident in American History called the "Whiskey Rebellion"?

Well, it's spirit is still alive... tongue.gif
  • 0