Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/9/2005 5:54:04 AM EDT
I've been thinking lately about supressing a G17 or G19. Anybody have any opinion which of these would be a better platform for this project? It's not intended for any "combat" use, really just as a neat range gun. I was thinking the G19 since it's got a shorter barrel which should produce less velocity and maybe less noise. Are there any other modifications that need to be made to the pistol besides an extended and threaded barrel? Would I need taller sights to see over the supressor? Thanks for your input. MJD
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 6:38:42 AM EDT
The sights are basically useless with a can. I shot the G17 below using 147gr sub-sonic ammo(very quiet). I have not shot a G19 with a suppressor but I doubt there is much difference in DBA levels.

Link Posted: 12/9/2005 11:27:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 11:32:20 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Taller sights are available for those who can't understand the concept of both eyes open dominant eye on sights non dominant eye on target.



How's that work for you at 25yds?
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 11:55:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Taller sights are available for those who can't understand the concept of both eyes open dominant eye on sights non dominant eye on target.



How's that work for you at 25yds?



Probably pretty good, 50 percent of the time that is
Link Posted: 12/9/2005 2:08:42 PM EDT
tag.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 12:20:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 12:21:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 4:53:00 PM EDT by David_Hineline]
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:31:15 AM EDT
You forgot to delete the retard post, Dave.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:24:07 AM EDT
My Glock doesn’t have the extra high sights and I sometimes shoot it suppressed.
I merely line up the dots on the 9-3 O’clock levels of the target circles. This takes care of how high/low I’m aiming. Then I adjust for left and right drift and squeeze the trigger. There should be an equal amount of dark/light on both sides of the target circles. The fact that I cannot see the bullseye directly doesn’t matter that much. Of course when I shoot for the best possible accuracy I don’t shoot suppressed.

And I hope I don't have to explain it again.
This is the last post for me until Wednesday night.
If you didn't understand what I described IM me; I'll get back to you when I can.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:30:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 6:50:47 AM EDT by BrianNH]

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Distance has nothing to do with it. Let me put it in terms retards can even understand.



Please do as there are many retards in this forum and we are in desperate need of a SPED instructor such as yourself.

I also think when another poster mentioned that the sights were useless with a can, what he was referring to was the fact the sight plane was obstructed by the can because the sights weren't tall enough. Your little dominant eye lesson only pertains to the can blocking the target which is a different issue that I dont think anyone even brought up.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:43:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By BrianNH:

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Distance has nothing to do with it. Let me put it in terms retards can even understand.



Please do as there are many retards in this forum and we are in desperate need of a SPED instructor such as yourself.

I also think when another poster mentioned that the sights were useless with a can, what he was referring to was the fact the sight plane was obstructed by the can because the sights weren't tall enough. Your little dominant eye lesson only pertains to the can blocking the target which is a different issue that I dont think anyone even brought up.



Actually, diregarding the retard nonsense, David's suggestion works just as well for the problem the shooter posed. Even if you can't see a sight picture past the can, if you have proper sight alignment, your brain will superimpose the two for you if you shoot two eyes open.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 8:55:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mattimeo:

Originally Posted By BrianNH:

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Distance has nothing to do with it. Let me put it in terms retards can even understand.



Please do as there are many retards in this forum and we are in desperate need of a SPED instructor such as yourself.

I also think when another poster mentioned that the sights were useless with a can, what he was referring to was the fact the sight plane was obstructed by the can because the sights weren't tall enough. Your little dominant eye lesson only pertains to the can blocking the target which is a different issue that I dont think anyone even brought up.



Actually, diregarding the retard nonsense, David's suggestion works just as well for the problem the shooter posed. Even if you can't see a sight picture past the can, if you have proper sight alignment, your brain will superimpose the two for you if you shoot two eyes open.



Sure, we'll disregard the retard comment cause he never "really" said it. The shooter didn't pose a problem, he merely asked, "Would I need taller sights to see over the supressor?" and I believe the short answer is yes.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 9:39:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Taller sights are available for those who can't understand the concept of both eyes open dominant eye on sights non dominant eye on target.



+1. The "occluded eye" concept works even better at longer range, where the parallax is less. This concept is valid for non-suppressor use as well, of course.

I have an SWR can on a Glock 19 right now. The G19 doubles as my ccw. If I had to do it over again, for a non-ccw piece, I would get a G34 with a threaded G17L bbl. I think RenegadeX has his set up like this. I think the longer bbl would offer a significantly lower sound signature.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:01:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fizassist:
+1. The "occluded eye" concept works even better at longer range, where the parallax is less. This concept is valid for non-suppressor use as well, of course.



I agree that it gets you "good enough" if you are simply trying to hit a man size target, anywhere. Or spray a shotgun pattern up there....

I mean, I can shoot "gangster style" down the side of my pistol and get "good enough", but I guess I want better than that accuracy and precision when I shoot.

I can't say I've had much luck with precise shooting using the "occluded eye" method outlined above. So I had TROS add higher sights to the Beretta.

I suppose the point is moot if you are pulling and shooting someone at 3-5yds.

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 1:56:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By fizassist:
+1. The "occluded eye" concept works even better at longer range, where the parallax is less. This concept is valid for non-suppressor use as well, of course.



I agree that it gets you "good enough" if you are simply trying to hit a man size target, anywhere. Or spray a shotgun pattern up there....

I mean, I can shoot "gangster style" down the side of my pistol and get "good enough", but I guess I want better than that accuracy and precision when I shoot.

I can't say I've had much luck with precise shooting using the "occluded eye" method outlined above. So I had TROS add higher sights to the Beretta.

I suppose the point is moot if you are pulling and shooting someone at 3-5yds.



Can you use BAC scopes? If so, then you can do this.... I honestly don't see what the problem is. I can shoot as well at >10yds with the can as without. If you practice situational awareness and shooting with both eyes open, the sight picture is almost exactly the same with and without the can. But hey, feel free to keep comparing gangsta shooting to proper technique.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:09:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HotRod9mm:
The sights are basically useless with a can. I shot the G17 below using 147gr sub-sonic ammo(very quiet). I have not shot a G19 with a suppressor but I doubt there is much difference in DBA levels.




Is that a conversion on the back of the slide? What's the ROF with that.

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 2:30:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 2:33:59 PM EDT by RenegadeX]
For the record, I use my sights. In fact, I have sights of some kind on all my guns. I find I hit where I am aiming a lot better. YMMV.

I usually shoot the G34 below with a Dr. Optic, or another gun with Mepro Adjustables. Personally, I really like adjustable sights on a handgun as I can zero them for a specific setup (ammo, distance). which is important for precision shooting, which is what I use my suppressed Glock for.

A G34 is the best choice for suppressed Glocking. This platform has several advantages in addtion to the normal advantages a G34 has over 17/19/26 - the longer barrel gives subsonic ammo a few more fps and still be subsonic, it is easy to get 17L barrels for it, less muzzle flip, they are quieter, and you do not have to worry about the the recoil guide hitting the can - just thread away.

Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:05:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By fizassist:
I can shoot as well at >10yds with the can as without.



Interesting claim.

You must be quite a pistol shot.

I suppose the H&K Tactical and Mk23 should have just stuck with standard lo-pro night sights. If the concept is so very easy, I'd be interested to know why H&K would design suppressor host pistols with taller sights?

I'm also curious why certain suppressor manufacturers have sights on the can?

I can use BAC scopes just fine though the concept is different.

On a BAC scope the visual path to the target is unobstructed through the optic and along the sight line with your dominant eye. Your dominant eye has a clear sight picture, as well as your non-dominant eye having peripheral vision as well as a sight picture.

I find using a BAC scope like my TA31F is far less accurate in shooting than using the same optic with proper attention paid to a proper, DOMINANT eye only, sight picture. Using it with boths eyes open I can consistently score zero downs out to 50yds while moving and stationary.

I would certainly close my non-dominant eye when taking a shot with the TA31F at 100 or 200yds.

I'm more accurate and precise with a proper sight picture; unobstructed.

While I can hit targets with an obstructed sight picture or none at all, I would never claim similar or better accuracy or precision with that method.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 3:14:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 3:17:37 PM EDT by niceguymr]
Not to hijack this thread...

Hotrod or Renegade,

Could you please provide us with a cost breakdown (excluding the cost of the gun) for achieving the type of setup you guys have? What steps are involved exactly? I too have been thinking about suppressing my Glock 17 but everytime I think about it, I say to myself... Nah, too much money, time, & trouble.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 4:56:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 5:03:56 PM EDT by David_Hineline]
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 5:54:13 PM EDT
Will a can block a Lasermax "site"?
Or I guess a better way to word it is which "brands" don't block the beam, if any?
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:15:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
I can use BAC scopes just fine though the concept is different.

On a BAC scope the visual path to the target is unobstructed through the optic and along the sight line with your dominant eye. Your dominant eye has a clear sight picture, as well as your non-dominant eye having peripheral vision as well as a sight picture.



The point of the BAC is that when acquiring a target, your dominant eye only picks up the reticle from the scope, and that is superimposed on the non-magnified view from the other eye. Everything else in the dominant eye picture is ignored until you start using it like a normal magnified scope. That's a lot like an OEG.


I'm more accurate and precise with a proper sight picture; unobstructed.

While I can hit targets with an obstructed sight picture or none at all, I would never claim similar or better accuracy or precision with that method.



Well, if you can't do it, you can't. Try it sometime. Focus on the front sight, as usual, and incorporate the non-dominant image (just as you would with the ACOG reticle). I'm about as un-tactical as it gets, and I don't have any trouble with this.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 6:19:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 8:07:17 PM EDT by fizassist]

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:
Will a can block a Lasermax "site"?
Or I guess a better way to word it is which "brands" don't block the beam, if any?



A can would have to less than about an inch in diameter. That's pretty small for a 9mm. My SWR can is 1.25" OD.

ETA: It looks like even the super-compact wipe cans (like GemTech aurora) are about 1.125".
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:01:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By hrt4me:
Is that a conversion on the back of the slide? What's the ROF with that.



Yes.

"ROF" = With sub-sonic I'm not sure. With normal NATO ammo in a G18(the converted G17 should be close to the same) it will dump 33rd mags in 1.1 or 1.2sec. So that works out to over 1600rds a minute.
Link Posted: 12/10/2005 7:18:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/10/2005 7:19:45 PM EDT by HotRod9mm]

Originally Posted By niceguymr:
....cost breakdown....



Form 4 = Free
$225.00 = Threaded barrel(Jarvis)
$200.00 = Tax Stamp(Required, 4-6 month wait)
$700.00 = Gem-Tech Trinity System suppressor(w/L.I.D)


You can spend less, cheaper barrel and a cheaper suppressor. But you know the old saying, "You get wha........." oh, you know the rest.

If you decide to jump, your dealer can help with the red tape paper work.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 10:36:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I correct my earlier post, evidently even retards can not understand the concept.



Fuck off Hineline.

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 11:07:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fizassist:
Well, if you can't do it, you can't. Try it sometime. Focus on the front sight, as usual, and incorporate the non-dominant image (just as you would with the ACOG reticle). I'm about as un-tactical as it gets, and I don't have any trouble with this.



When shooting a pistol at distances under 25/50yds, without a can, I usually shoot with both eyes open.

So I'm pretty sure I am already doing it, but I'll have to try it with another pistol and see if it's accurate for me.

Maybe this is the excuse I need for another G19.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 3:22:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2005 3:23:21 PM EDT by niceguymr]

Originally Posted By HotRod9mm:

Originally Posted By hrt4me:
Is that a conversion on the back of the slide? What's the ROF with that.



Yes.

"ROF" = With sub-sonic I'm not sure. With normal NATO ammo in a G18(the converted G17 should be close to the same) it will dump 33rd mags in 1.1 or 1.2sec. So that works out to over 1600rds a minute.



I feel like this is a dumb question but I'll go ahead and ask anyway...

Are you MIL/LEO or can anyone who wants to spend the money LEGALLY own a converted Glock like yours? What would that cost? That is just awesome!!!!

And thanks for posting the cost breakdown for your cans setup too. I heard something like you need to get the local Chief of Police (or someone like that) to sign off, or approve, in order for you to get a suppressor. Is that true? I live in Dade county FL.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 3:44:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By niceguymr:
can anyone who wants to spend the money LEGALLY own a converted Glock like yours?



No. I don't think any of the conversion devices were pre-86. That means LE/mil/SOT only.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 4:24:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By niceguymr:
Not to hijack this thread...

Hotrod or Renegade,

Could you please provide us with a cost breakdown (excluding the cost of the gun) for achieving the type of setup you guys have? What steps are involved exactly? I too have been thinking about suppressing my Glock 17 but everytime I think about it, I say to myself... Nah, too much money, time, & trouble.



I have had my setup for several years so I cannot remember exactly, but something like:

Used Glock 17L barrel from GlockTalk/WTS - $100 (new is about $145)

Threading - $75

SWR-GS9K2 - ~$850 (K3 upgrade $200)

ATF - $200

Dr. Optic - $250 or so.

I paid a lot for the K2 since at the time they were still MIL/LEO items and not easily obtainable. I was actually buying a HEMS but the dealer demod the K2 for me so I bought it on the spot.

I can shoot skunks and other small varmints out to 50 yards no problem though, the Dr. Optic is perfectly zero'd.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 4:49:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/11/2005 5:06:51 PM EDT by HotRod9mm]

Originally Posted By niceguymr:
Are you MIL/LEO or can anyone who wants to spend the money LEGALLY own a converted Glock like yours? What would that cost?


No I'm not LEO, the set up belongs to a friend that is a class III manufacture. As stated we in the US cannot own them because the act passed in '86(seams like the act passed in '68 had something to do with it also).



I heard something like you need to get the local Chief of Police (or someone like that) to sign off, or approve, in order for you to get a suppressor. Is that true? I live in Dade county FL.


Yes, your local LE department head will need to do the back round check then they sign off the form 4. You send the form to the tax office and it gets filed until the clerk gets off of there lazy a$$, stamps the form and returns it. It really sucks because they do nothing except collect the $200. Everything is done by you before you send them the form.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 9:52:17 AM EDT
Originally Posted By David_Hineline:


I correct my earlier post, evidently even retards can not understand the concept.

Dave
I guess I am one of those retards you describe. Not having the skills or knowledge you have. I would feel bad now asking you advice. I was intrigued by the first part of your signature line....but now I can see why
Arrogance is a terrible disease....
Learning
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 2:33:26 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 3:14:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Yes it is a shame that you feel asking the advice of a person who does have my abilities and skills is a mistake.



I'm curious, what exactly are these abilities and skills you speak of that make you superior to others?

How does one even know if they are worthy of being blessed by your immeasurable, superior knowledge and intellect?
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:00:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 6:08:32 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I would rather be an asshole than stupid anyday.



You are 2 for 2. You've got both adjectives covered.


Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:09:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2005 4:30:02 PM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Yes it is a shame that you feel asking the advice of a person who does have my abilities and skills is a mistake.

I suppose you would do better asking the advise of those who can't do things rather than those who can.

When you can do something that others can not, it's not bragging, it's just a fact.

The discussion started by a guy asking does he need taller sights, I explained that they are available but not really needed because with practice one can easily shoot just as well without taller sights.

Then the Nay-Sayers pop in with thier incorrect opinion of how this is impossible, can't be done etc.

I would rather be an asshole than stupid anyday.



I'd hate to have you speak to opticians who will tell you that not all eyes are "wired the same". In fact, it's quite widely known that not all people can use an optic designed for BAC, including people with astigmatism and other eye maladies.

Of course, with your self-proclaimed superiority complex you'd already know these things.

Please explain why H&K uses sights that clear the KAC suppressor designed for the Mk23 system. I would wager that that community for which the Mk23 was designed has a little more training and a little more shooting skill than most of the rest of the world. Yet they get a design with proper sights to clear the can. Hmm...

Please explain why H&K uses sights that clear nearly any .45 suppressor that can fit the Tactical.

From a uniformity standpoint wouldn't H&K be more intelligent to just use the low mount sights? Not to mention cost effcient?

Or maybe there really is something to having a PROPER sight picture, with and without a suppressor.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 8:43:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 9:08:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I would rather be an asshole than stupid anyday.



You are 2 for 2. You've got both adjectives covered.



Actually, in that context, "asshole" is a noun.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 5:58:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fizassist:

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
I would rather be an asshole than stupid anyday.



You are 2 for 2. You've got both adjectives covered.



Actually, in that context, "asshole" is a noun.



Yep, and he still has them both covered in spades, huh?
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:08:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
There is nothing wrong with having tall sights, I was just correcting the person's post who said the blocked sights are useless, which they are not.



Nothing wrong? Or probably a good idea to have functional sights?


Don't assume your lack of abilities applys to others.


I've never claimed to be an excellent pistolero. In fact, I usually state quite simply that I am good enough to hit what I aim at under stress. That's about it.

Unlike you, I don't suffer from delusions of grandeur and think some "game" shooting, and machine guns, makes me hot shit.

Of course you do, which is why you are such a boor.
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 7:17:24 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 8:54:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:

Don't assume your lack of abilities applys to others.



applies

Sorry, I had to get in on this
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 10:27:59 AM EDT
Godness, y'all are a touchy bunch. It seems to me that the cost/benefit of the supressed 9mm platform is really not that great. Sure it would be fun, but the can, tax, and barrel are close to $1K. I think it would be more beneficial for me to supress my Buckmark instead. Cheaper ammo, and cheaper can, plus, I've already got the Buckmark. Maybe one day when I'm rich and famous instead of just good looking I'll go this route, but not now. Thanks for the informative replies, and the squabbling, I found much of that funny. MJD
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 11:19:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 11:20:02 AM EDT by SHIVAN]

Originally Posted By highwayman:
I think it would be more beneficial for me to supress my Buckmark instead. Cheaper ammo, and cheaper can, plus, I've already got the Buckmark.





***NOTE THE UNOBSTRUCTED SIGHTS.......***
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 12:01:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/13/2005 12:01:57 PM EDT by Quarterbore]
Yea, but the letters on that can are upside down.... man... you need to send that to an SOT that knows what they are doing to get that fixed
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 12:19:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Quarterbore:
...you need to send that to an SOT that knows what they are doing to get that fixed





Link Posted: 12/13/2005 6:39:15 PM EDT
I just had to save this for future reference...

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:33:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 4:44:59 PM EDT by aecasasus]
I like my set up a lot. I have a Jarvis National Match barrel and an Evolution9 can. It works FLAWLESS!!!!


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:32:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By aecasasus:
I like my set up a lot. I have a Jarvis National Match barrel and an Evolution9 can. It works FLAWLESSLY!!!!

img225.imageshack.us/img225/1163/glocksupp0go.jpg





Nice setup.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:58:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 9:00:54 PM EDT by Gunbert]

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Distance has nothing to do with it. Let me put it in terms retards can even understand.

With both eyes open look across the room at a door knob. Now put hold up a finger in front of your dominant eye close to your eye.

My Gawd you can see both your finger and the doorknob at the same time, How is this evil witch magic even possible.

Same with gun sights, dominant eye sees gun sights non dominant eys sees target, the fact that the can blocks the dominant eye matters not at all.




Too bad you can't see through all your smugness, david. If you were as smart as us peons you love to condescend to, you would see that your point of view is slightly different from right to left eye, and if you are focusing on what your left eye is looking at with your right looking down the sights, your weapon will be off. It's parallax, but instead of vertical, it's horizontal.

Lets see how big a man you are david; try this simple experiment and then tell me you still believe your theory. Take an upper or rifle with an ACOG on it, preferably one with a well defined crosshair or chevron. Now block the objective lens. You'll still be able to see the reticle using your 'both eyes open' technique, so now aim at something relatively small 50 yards away. If at all possible, sandbag the weapon so that once you've aimed it it won't move. Now take the cover from the objective lens and look through the scope with one eye only. Bet your ass that thing isn't where you pointed it with both eyes. Not even close.

And don't give me that BS arguement about pistol ranges being so close that the POI differences won't matter. If POA and POI didn't matter we'd all just be point shooting.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top