BDH Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 At the 3 Gun Nats, one of the US Army team showed up shooting a rifle with a silencer or suppressor attached (sorry, I don't know what the 'correct' term is). Anyway, I heard through the grapevine that there was a debate about whether this device should be considered a 'compensator' effectively moving the competitor to Open Division. I think the competitor argued that it was not a compensator, while others argued that it absolutely was a compensator. I 'believe' the decision was made that this qualified as a compensator and the competitor moved to Open, but I do not know for sure. I am not trying to take a position on one side or the other, and we were so d*mn busy running shooters all day (and part of the night ) that I never heard the actual story from anyone directly involved. All that said, my question is this..... has anyone run into this before, and if so, what Division does a 'silenced' gun belong in?? Also, one tip for those of you that might run up against this in the future.... you have to get the timer really, REALLY close to the muzzle to pick up the shots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Thomas Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 A compensator is a device that vents gases to control muzzle flip, and gas pressure pressing against a forward "wall" on the comp also lessens rearward push. A silencer damps noise and has none of a comp's features. Therefore I would have to say a silencer is not a compensator - by definition: venting muzzle gases through the comp makes the gun louder. The only way I can see they might have ruled the silencer was a comp would be if they figured it acted as a barrel weight to hold down muzzle flip, like on the early pin guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 just thinking... 1. comps do not suppress sound...duh comps reduce muzzle rise and staplize (side ports) 2. suppressors reduce sound..controlled expansion of noise and gasses i would say that a suppressor is not a compensator. lynn p.s. compensators compensate for muzzle rise and suppressors compensate for noise. hmm suppressors have to be licensed and compensators do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Johnson Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I wouldn't classify a silencer as a compensator but it could be considered a muzzle weight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 I've gotta disagree. Anybody that's shot a suppressor-equipped blaster and then shot it with the suppressor removed says the latter recoils more. This is because the exiting muzzle gases are slowed and redirected such that their energy is not thrown directly out the front of the muzzle, contributing to recoil. Sometimes there are even vertical or angled baffles internally that the escaping gas smacks into in order to slow and cool, exactly how the baffles in a compensator work. Amount-o-noise does not define a "compensator", and the naming thereof is irrelevant-- a shooter does not escape the compensator prohibition by renaming one a "super-noise-o-blast-enhancer', it's what it does that counts-- lessen (or compensate for, if you will) recoil to the shooter by redirecting powder gases. Suppressors do that. Last time around: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13522 Or the How Does a Comp Work thread: http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11285 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Gotta agree with Shred. A compensator will reduce muzzle rise by having the hot gasses working throughout kinda labyrinth of rooms. The result of this work is recoil reduction. A silencer/suppressor will have hot gasses working, in order to reduce the pressure waves (or shock waves if bullet is supersonic) and therefore noise: this is the primary effect. But it creates a secondary effect which is recoil reduction, because the same work employed to suppress noise will also dampen recoil. I guess it is this secondary effect that ruled a silenced/suppressed gun to be scored in Open Division. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunther Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 If you have shot a suppressed weapon and a compensated weapon, the clear advantage is the suppressed weapon, I feel that a suppressor eliminates recoil way better than a compensator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james h Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 fwiw my suppressed rifle recoils and lifts less then an unsuppressed one, although i would say this is down to the position of the extra weight more than anything else: ergo a suppressor is an "external device to reduce recoil" hence open division beckons j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Hi guys, My primary concern is that it looks like we need to address the issue of sound suppressors, one way or another, but I believe the optimum solution would be for Handgun, Rifle and Shotgun disciplines to each deal with them at Division level in the Appendices by either: 1. Changing the existing "Compensator" line in each Appendix table to "Compensators and/or suppressors permitted" ............... Yes/No. OR 2. Adding a new line in the tables with "Suppressors permitted" ............... Yes/No. Of course it might be expedient, for Handgun only, to add the word in bold below: 5.1.10 Handguns with suppressors, shoulder stocks and/or foregrips of any kind are prohibited. In any case, we'd also need to add a new definition of the respective items in each Glossary. Comments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Don't completely disallow them in competition, as some range somewhere might want to put on silencer matches or might be under municipal noise restrictions. Just state suppressors or silencers are compensators and are subject to the restrictions in the divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Interesting, If I drive my car without a muffler, "Silencer or suppressor" the police will issue a summons and I pay a fine. Why? Because it is noisy and annoys people. If on the otherhand, I shoot a gun WITH a muffler, unless I pay a special tax and live in an area that allows them, I will get arrested. Why do ranges get closed? Noise! Is there a solution? Yes! Can we use said solution? Sorry, not in the PRof NJ and at least a few other places around the world I am sure. I think this is called a Catch 22. Jim Norman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Weeel...errrr... I guess it would be funny to see suppressors allowed for handguns and seeing someone attempting to apply it to a revolver... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Don't completely disallow them in competition, as some range somewhere might want to put on silencer matches or might be under municipal noise restrictions. Just state suppressors or silencers are compensators and are subject to the restrictions in the divisions. Thanks for the constructive input. This sounds reasonable to me, and that's why I referred to it as the "optimum solution". Of course if we did it at division level for Handgun, suppressors would effectively still be prohibited in Standard, Modified, Production and Revolver Standard (and I dare say in Limited/L10?). And, hell, that's gonna be one helluva chunky Open Division blaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Of course if we did it at division level for Handgun, suppressors would effectively still be prohibited in Standard, Modified, Production and Revolver Standard (and I dare say in Limited/L10?). Why in modified? If you approximate a suppressor to a comp, and it fits the box, it's suitable for modified. Isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Pinto Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 My dear Young Jedi, Note the word "effectively" in my post. Now quit speed-reading my posts, take your dyslexia pills and call me in the morning The other thing is that a single port comp might fit the box, but a 1" silencer would be as useful as a single chopstick when eating rice ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Vince, I "effectively" read your post, but interpreted it the following way: in Standard, Production, Revolver Standard Divisions we have rules against the use of comps, then suppressors (that can be deemed to have effects similar to comps) are not allowed in those divisions. Hence "effectively" for me meant "in analogy with comps and ports". If you meant to use "effectively" as to say "in a practical way", I'd say I don't agree with you. You know for sure no suppressed gun would still fit all divisional requirements for Standard and/or Modified Divisions (comps and ports notwithstanding)? I recall having seen photos of a russian 9mm suppressed semiauto that will fit the box for sure. The suppressor is kind of a tube around the barrel, ad the latter has the same lenght of a standard gun, only fatter. Now i'll take my pills and a new seminar at Shenker Institute... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james h Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 you know i sometimes wish i could post pictures of the funny guns i have played with...including a suppressed revolver and a few pistols that will fit the box and were/are made in more than 100 units. on a serious note i do not think any serious competitor is going to use one but we should not disallow them totally because of the noise problems some ranges have. dealing with them seperately by class (hg,sg,rifle) is sensible but maybe with the proviso that they are only allowed where required due to local ordinances.....or maybe this is a can of worms being opened needlessly....... j Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Shred and the others are right. While a sound suppressor (aka "silencer") may not technically be a "compensator," it is will very much act like a muzzle brake because it decellerates the exhaust gases to well below the speed of sound and the physics are very much like a muzzle brake on the inside. The difference is that with a simple brake, the gases are vented at a much higher velocity/energy. The other factor of it being a muzzle weight is also germaine to the issue. I think suppressors should just be categorized with comps, brakes, and external weights ... the realm of the unlimited or open divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 ...including a suppressed revolver and a few pistols that will fit the box and were/are made in more ... Interesting. I saw only one photo of a suppressed revolver that might actually work. It was a normal 5" revolver (I don't remember the manufacturer, but might as well have been S&W or Colt), with a sleeve encasing the whole barrel, the forcing cone and part of the cylinder. I guess this is the only effective way to suppress noise in a revo. Isn't it? Otherwise, maybe a Mosin Nagant 7.62x38 Revolver can be silenced, due to it's cylinder forward movement upon full cocking, that effectively seals the barrel with the cylinder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDH Posted June 30, 2004 Author Share Posted June 30, 2004 Okay, so here is what I am gathering...... 1) the correct term is 'suppressor' not silencer... 2) most people feel that in addition to suppressing noise, it cuts recoil so the gun belongs in Open Division... Personally, I can't imagine we will see enough of this to require a rule change, but... Remember, I wasn't a part of the debate or anything on this, I just heard about it through the range grapevine. It was kind of cool 'listening' to him shoot the stage with this thing. It would have been even cooler if he flipped it to full auto mode! Of course, then the scoring would have been something like TWELVE ALPHA... NINE ALPHA... TEN ALPHA etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rhino Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 The problem with suppressors is that some shot timers have trouble registering the shots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Beverley Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Hi guys,My primary concern is that it looks like we need to address the issue of sound suppressors, one way or another, but I believe the optimum solution would be for Handgun, Rifle and Shotgun disciplines to each deal with them at Division level in the Appendices by either: 1. Changing the existing "Compensator" line in each Appendix table to "Compensators and/or suppressors permitted" ............... Yes/No. OR 2. Adding a new line in the tables with "Suppressors permitted" ............... Yes/No. Of course it might be expedient, for Handgun only, to add the word in bold below: 5.1.10 Handguns with suppressors, shoulder stocks and/or foregrips of any kind are prohibited. In any case, we'd also need to add a new definition of the respective items in each Glossary. Comments? I made a note of this topic early this morning and I'm sure we should deal with it. I lean towards Vince's option 2. For SG I would permit them in Open and Modified but not in Standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skywalker Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Neil, Vince, guess you'd save a lot of hassles and worries by simply stating "Compensators and/or Suppressors" in the appropriate row of Division requirements tables. At least if you agree that the secondary effect of a suppressor is very similar to a compensator one. Here in Italy (silly enough) suppressors are totally outlawed, for hanguns, rifles and whatever makes bang, but I like the idea of letting whoever can lawfully use it do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shred Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Seems like a Glossary might be in order instead-- that way you'd get real definitions of the terms and can add 'wierd' exceptions like this in one spot: For example: Compensator- any device that uses muzzle gases to reduce or redirect recoil. This includes suppressors and barrel ports We can argue the port language later.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uscbigdawg Posted June 30, 2004 Share Posted June 30, 2004 Shot a supressed M4 this weekend with some friends after the match festivities. Spun the bad boy off and compared. It works very well to reduce muzzle flip. Supressor = Open Division Rich P.S. On a side note. Try to peel the smile off my face after shooting it without ears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now