Revisiting suppresser on a revolver question

[slackercruster]

OK, last time I posted about this you showed me the pix of the gas escaping from the cylinder where it meets the barrel. So, I get the message, revolver is not the ideal host.

My question is, if a suppresser is put on revolver how much, if any, does it cut back on the noise? Does it cut in down noticeably, very little or none at all?

No guessing please, anyone ever try it?

[a_canadian]

Okay, I won't guess as to the particulars of your questions. But I will offer the opinion that it could easily increase the volume of flames, smoke, and particulates flying out the sides of the pistol due to the dramatic increase in back pressure from the suppressor baffles. Seems not a good idea for that reason alone, even if noise gets reduced (which I'm not saying it would or wouldn't, owing to my lack of direct experience in such a silly experiment).

[Tony M.]

I'm currently one thread adapter away from finding out.

Gimme a month or two and I'll let you know.

[Deja vu]

I have thought about this some. I dont think it would increase the blow back any more than having an extra 6-8 inches of barrel would.

I have thought about getting my BFR threaded but I doubt I really will. Keep us informed if you go ahead.

[quiettime]

I have thought about this some. I dont think it would increase the blow back any more than having an extra 6-8 inches of barrel would.

It does because baffles are designed to trap gasses and prolong their time spent inside while the relatively smooth extra barrel length is mostly just letting the high speed gasses escape with very minimal extra dwell time

[Deja vu]

It does because baffles are designed to trap gasses and prolong their time spent inside while the relatively smooth extra barrel length is mostly just letting the high speed gasses escape with very minimal extra dwell time

that's why I don't build suppressors. Just cause it makes sense to me does not make it factual. Thank you for enlightening me!

[Todd Is]

Based on subjective experience, it is a complete waste of time, effort and money to suppress a revolver. The cylinder gap blast is just as offensive as the unmodified muzzle blast.

Akin to attaching the best suppressor in the whole wide world onto your favorite integral, and then taking the integral shroud off, ouch.....

[hardcase]

There is or was a Russian revolver that seals. The chamber of each slides forward into the barrel. I don't remember the model. Naget M1895 I think. Google Russian revolver.

[a_canadian]

The Nagant 1895 has a cylinder which moves forward while you're pulling the trigger, pressing the reduced neck of the cases into the breech and practically sealing it. Special ammunition is required. Here's an excellent video from the 'Forgotten Weapons' series:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh1mojMaEtM
At round the 3:20 mark you can see demonstrated just what a dramatic difference this sealing to the barrel makes.
Here's another video demonstrating it with a modern suppressor attached:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR8-6ZzI4fc
This guy is most well known around here for this video, with an exceptionally long and very, very quiet home built stainless steel K baffle suppressor on a 10-22 SBR:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyBNJ_31uQc

[doubloon]

Never shot one but I'm just guessing one of the worst trigger pulls on the planet.

[Prince Yamato]

I have seen a Nagant with a 32 acp conversion cylinder (non-sealed) suppressed. The answer is that it DOES cut down on noise somewhat, but not a lot. That's the closest I have seen to "other than the Nagant" suppressed.

I'm not an engineer, but I don't see what's really preventing revolver suppression, other than nay-sayers.

I think the criteria are the following:

1) Not a high-powered round (So you're looking at .38 special and smaller)
2) You need to be able to adjust the cylinder gap so that it is tight but still functional
2.5) I think you could "seal it" with a silicone wipe, but I'm not sure
3) You need to encase the cylinder with a "blast shield"

I've thought about this long and hard and I think one of those Italian break-open revolvers (or one of the new Russian ones if they could ever be imported) would be the easiest to do it on, as you wouldn't need a swing-out cylinder.

I really like revolvers, but I hate shooting without a silencer- therefore, I don't own a revolver.

I'm thinking this can all be done for under $1500 if you go with a used S&W or a Taurus (which is what I'd experiment on). It can't be THAT hard to do.

[Kanook]

Pay attention at the 1:00 mark

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHzVjrh10c

It appears to work pretty good for them

[HK Nole]

I doubt it would be anywhere near OSHA safe. Revolvers throw a lot of gas out of the cylinder. If you could find a revolver design that had a somewhat sealed cylinder maybe there would be some reduction but I'm just not seeing the point. Silenced or not I just never bought into revolver designs.

[TROOPER]

I always think it's weird when people bring up the old "suppressed revolver" question, and then argue against the inevitable avalanche of so-called nay-sayers. I find this humorous since revolver enthusiasts worry about things like flame-cutting, or incorrectly bracing a revolver so that the thumb is exposed to the cylinder gap. Why in the world would anyone assume that this spontaneous blast of high-pressure, hot air would be anything other than loud? And worse, when suppressed, why it would be anything other than exacerbated?

It's just strange to see people argue -- with confidence! -- to the contrary of senior members saying that the project has been done, and that it's just not worth it.

Logic. There's a hole in the barrel that sound comes out of. The end.

[doubloon]

I always think ...

Maybe you weren't paying attention.

[quiettime]

Never shot one but I'm just guessing one of the worst trigger pulls on the planet.

Yeah they're horrible

[Prince Yamato]

I always think it's weird when people bring up the old "suppressed revolver" question, and then argue against the inevitable avalanche of so-called nay-sayers. I find this humorous since revolver enthusiasts worry about things like flame-cutting, or incorrectly bracing a revolver so that the thumb is exposed to the cylinder gap. Why in the world would anyone assume that this spontaneous blast of high-pressure, hot air would be anything other than loud? And worse, when suppressed, why it would be anything other than exacerbated?

Because part 2 of the suppressed revolver equation is to cover the cylinder. A suppressed revolver may very well be a 2 stamp deal (1 for the muzzle and 1 for the cylinder cover). It HAS been done with that German .45 acp revolver. (Picture is floating around the internet). I think what people want is a modernized version of that. If it can be sold for under $1500, I bet there'd be buyers.

It can be done, I think it's just the labor that makes people go, "no, can't do it".

Find a caliber where the blowback from the cylinder isn't astronomical, like .22, .32, or something like that. A 10 shot S&W .22LR revolver that was effectively suppressed would be a VERY sweet gun.

[doubloon]

I assume you're talking about this contraption.

[hardcase]

Silenced or not I just never bought into revolver designs.

I'm in the over 60 group where in my youth revolvers were the thing to have. I still love mine, though now use hearing protection unlike the times of my youth. What's that you said??

I had a Colt .357 Trooper I think (big mistake selling it) and tried to shoot it once lying on my back holding it between my knees to keep it from moving. Big mistake. The blast between the cylinder and forcing cone blew my knees apart and nearly set my jeans on fire.

[Prince Yamato]

YES! That's the design. I figured the clam-shell could be made smaller and lighter on a modern revolver with newer materials and if a smaller caliber design was used. Heck, the entire thing could be made smaller. That's an early 90s can. I think a Chiappa Rhino with a Silencero Osprey would look cool. Then find a way to encase the cylinder.

I think it totally can be done. I mean, look at that picture. How hard is it to do a better version of that? It can't be THAT hard to do.

[fastfire]

I always think it's weird when people bring up the old "suppressed revolver" question, and then argue against the inevitable avalanche of so-called nay-sayers. I find this humorous since revolver enthusiasts worry about things like flame-cutting, or incorrectly bracing a revolver so that the thumb is exposed to the cylinder gap. Why in the world would anyone assume that this spontaneous blast of high-pressure, hot air would be anything other than loud? And worse, when suppressed, why it would be anything other than exacerbated?

Because part 2 of the suppressed revolver equation is to cover the cylinder. A suppressed revolver may very well be a 2 stamp deal (1 for the muzzle and 1 for the cylinder cover). It HAS been done with that German .45 acp revolver. (Picture is floating around the internet). I think what people want is a modernized version of that. If it can be sold for under $1500, I bet there'd be buyers.

It can be done, I think it's just the labor that makes people go, "no, can't do it".

Find a caliber where the blowback from the cylinder isn't astronomical, like .22, .32, or something like that. A 10 shot S&W .22LR revolver that was effectively suppressed would be a VERY sweet gun.

2 stamp? Would putting the clam shell be considered a suppressor? How about calling it a flash suppressor?
I thought the suppressor went on the barrel.

[a_canadian]

A very significant portion of the noise is escaping from the cylinder gap. Damping noise output significantly after the explosive charge has exploded is considered noise suppression under the rules. Therefore a casing around a revolver cylinder would seem very likely to be considered a suppressor, even if you didn't put an Osprey or whatever on the muzzle. It does beg a question however. Would a slide lock preventing the action from opening when a semi-auto pistol is fired be considered a suppressor? The action being blown back certainly contributes to the total noise signature, so preventing this noise would seem to be suppression...

[doubloon]

Suppressing the noise of the mechanical action itself may not count.

A "report" is mostly defined as a loud noise as from an explosion.

Of course, the ATF hasn't had it's hand in defining the word yet that I know of.

[fastfire]

Suppressing the noise of the mechanical action itself may not count.

A "report" is mostly defined as a loud noise as from an explosion.

Of course, the ATF hasn't had it's hand in defining the word yet that I know of.

Oh, just wait!

[Tony M.]

For me the question isn't "Will it work well?" the obvious answer to that is No. But rather, my question is about how well it works.

The fascination and desire to understand comes from the knowledge that at one point in US history, suppressed revolvers where issued to vietnam 'tunnel rats' along with various other funky equipment.

Since I've always assumed that it would barely work at all, I've often wondered why the government even bothered. To be clear, I'm not talking about the later N-frames with captive piston ammo, but the first iteration .38 revolvers with attached muzzle cans.

I have an appropriate can, an appropriate revolver, and a B&K 2209 with proper mic and calibration, so the only things missing where the threaded barrel, which I acquired recently, and a thread adapter to use the can (which is being made at the moment). So I figured I might as well find out.

Once the thread adapter arrives, I'll do just that.

For the guys wanting to modernize the concept, Think about how much easier it would be to use a modernized top-break revolver. The gas trap could be built into the frame and the cylinder sealed to the gas trap via silicone O-ring(s). It wouldn't work for anything powerful, but a .22 could be done fairly easily without blowing out the o-rings.