Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/5/2006 7:43:14 AM EDT
I don't understand why I don't see more 1911s with supressors. I'm looking forward to turning 21, sending out my Form 1 and building a can for my AR-15.

I'm also planning on buying a .22LR can for my Ruger Mark II, but I'm wondering, why do I never see people with a suppressed 1911?
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:18:15 AM EDT
Some possible reasons:

1. Practicality. As a general rule, the .45 ACP round is not easy to suppress, and thus, one sees many more suppressed 9mm pistols and .22lr pistols than .45s. To suppress a .45, you usually need to add water or gel to the suppressor, which gets blown back in the face of the operator, which tends to turn a lot of people off to the idea. The only .45 guns that are commonly seen with suppressors are the HK Mark 23 and Tactical, which come from the factory with extended, threaded barrels.

I own two suppressed 9mm pistols that can be shot bone dry and have absolutely no interest in suppressing any .45 pistol.

2. Cost. Lots of guys pour a ton of money into their 1911s for custom parts. Then think about adding a suppressor- you need an extended threaded barrel ($260), a suppressor ($550-900), ATF paperwork (pain in the ass), and $200 tax stamp from the federal government. So a $1000 1911 becomes a $2500 gun real quick when you decide to play the NFA game.

3. Desire. I don't think many hardcore 1911 fans are that big into NFA weapons (this is a generalization, I realize). Go on the 1911 forum on any internet site, and you rarely see a post relating to NFA weapons. The only guys I know who suppress 1911s do so with Marvel .22lr conversion kits. And those guys usually own many NFA weapons, and very few 1911s. YMMV

P.S.: Why would you want to form 1 a suppressor for an AR-15? First of all, .223 suppressors do not make the rifle "quiet" because the .223 round is high-velocity/high-pressure and is therefore extremely difficult to suppress. Even with a state-of-the-art suppressor made by a company that supplies the federal government, the rifle will sound like a .22 rifle. Hearing protection should still be worn with .223 suppressors to avoid loss of hearing.

If you want something that is really quiet, you should consider (1) a suppressed .22lr pistol (I recommend a muzzle can rather than an intregrally suppressed pistol) or (2) a 9mm pistol w/new production suppressor made by either SWR, AAC, or Gemtech.

Lastly, are suppressors legal in MI? Last time I checked, they were not. But that could have changed recently, I do not know.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 8:41:40 AM EDT
It is difficult to make a suppressed 1911 reliable.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 9:35:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By trakker45:
Some possible reasons:

1. Practicality. As a general rule, the .45 ACP round is not easy to suppress, and thus, one sees many more suppressed 9mm pistols and .22lr pistols than .45s. To suppress a .45, you usually need to add water or gel to the suppressor, which gets blown back in the face of the operator, which tends to turn a lot of people off to the idea. The only .45 guns that are commonly seen with suppressors are the HK Mark 23 and Tactical, which come from the factory with extended, threaded barrels.

I own two suppressed 9mm pistols that can be shot bone dry and have absolutely no interest in suppressing any .45 pistol.

2. Cost. Lots of guys pour a ton of money into their 1911s for custom parts. Then think about adding a suppressor- you need an extended threaded barrel ($260), a suppressor ($550-900), ATF paperwork (pain in the ass), and $200 tax stamp from the federal government. So a $1000 1911 becomes a $2500 gun real quick when you decide to play the NFA game.

3. Desire. I don't think many hardcore 1911 fans are that big into NFA weapons (this is a generalization, I realize). Go on the 1911 forum on any internet site, and you rarely see a post relating to NFA weapons. The only guys I know who suppress 1911s do so with Marvel .22lr conversion kits. And those guys usually own many NFA weapons, and very few 1911s. YMMV

P.S.: Why would you want to form 1 a suppressor for an AR-15? First of all, .223 suppressors do not make the rifle "quiet" because the .223 round is high-velocity/high-pressure and is therefore extremely difficult to suppress. Even with a state-of-the-art suppressor made by a company that supplies the federal government, the rifle will sound like a .22 rifle. Hearing protection should still be worn with .223 suppressors to avoid loss of hearing.

If you want something that is really quiet, you should consider (1) a suppressed .22lr pistol (I recommend a muzzle can rather than an intregrally suppressed pistol) or (2) a 9mm pistol w/new production suppressor made by either SWR, AAC, or Gemtech.

Lastly, are suppressors legal in MI? Last time I checked, they were not. But that could have changed recently, I do not know.


Just recently the Michigan Attourney General re-interperated the law to allow MGs, but he only addressed MGs specifically. Though, cans were under the same statute as the MGs, so we're basically just waiting for confirmation.

The law was basically, "you need a license to own a MG or supressor unless it's C&R (so we could always get C&R MGs)"
Just recently Mike Cox, the AG, stated that the tax stamp was sufficient licensing to obtain MGs, but since the same statute contained suppressors and MGs, most people think we'll have our suppressors soon enough.


Originally Posted By triburst1:
It is difficult to make a suppressed 1911 reliable.


I thought that might have something to do with it, but I wasn't sure why.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 2:58:20 PM EDT


It isn't a .45 ACP, but a 40S&W. Using full power 180's, it cycles just fine. I haven't tried the lighter weight bullets, but going too light will mean being supersonic.
Link Posted: 4/5/2006 4:57:15 PM EDT
I didn't mention cycling problems because I believe they are no longer an issue with the big three suppressor makers, i.e., SWR (HEMS II), AAC (Evolution 40 and 45), and Gemtech (Blackside). I stand by my original statement that the lack of suppressed 1911s stems from lack of interest and the fact that .45 cans generally have to be shot "wet."
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:52:16 AM EDT
Why does .45 ACP need a 'wet' can? Is it a gas management issue?


Originally Posted By trakker45:

To suppress a .45, you usually need to add water or gel to the suppressor, which gets blown back in the face of the operator, which tends to turn a lot of people off to the idea.

Link Posted: 4/6/2006 7:52:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sgt_Gold:
Why does .45 ACP need a 'wet' can? Is it a gas management issue?



Yes, the bigger hole let's more gas "escape". For example Brügger&Thomet Impuls suppressors suppress the sound pressure level by 28/24/19 dB for 9mm/.40/.45.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 4:12:11 PM EDT
While I kmow little about cans, I do know that the .45 ACP is subsonic to begin with so supression would be easier in a way as there is no subsonic ammo to buy and no supersonic crack to begin with anyways. There were .45 cans back when the Mil was testing some of their toys and I heard no problems.

Correct me If I am wrong.
Link Posted: 4/6/2006 5:21:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/6/2006 5:22:02 PM EDT by hrt4me]
I have a HEMS-2 which I dedicated to a Springfield 1911 Loaded Model in .45 ACP. It shoots fine, and I have no cycling issues. It works well both wet and dry.

I have a Jet .22LR suppressor which I dedicated to a Springfield 1911 Mil-Spec with either a Jarvis or Marvel .22LR conversion kit with extended and threaded barrel. I have not ordered the conversion kit yet, still trying to decide between Jarvis and Marvel.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:00:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:
While I kmow little about cans, I do know that the .45 ACP is subsonic to begin with so supression would be easier in a way as there is no subsonic ammo to buy and no supersonic crack to begin with anyways. There were .45 cans back when the Mil was testing some of their toys and I heard no problems.

Correct me If I am wrong.



You are correct that 230 grain ammo is subsonic; however, that is not the only factor. You still have to deal with the gases expelled from the muzzle, and the size of the hole at the end of the suppressor is so large that it is difficult to suppress the blast created by the .45 round without using gel or water inside the can. Don't get me wrong, you can make a .45 pistol really quiet- but you are going to get messy doing it. That's why most people suppress .22s and 9mms.
Link Posted: 4/7/2006 6:08:47 AM EDT
I have shot a nice Wilson 1911 with a wet can. I do not recall the make of the can but it was grease filled. The pistol cycled reliably and it was slightly louder than the suppressed .22 pistol we were shooting. The grease however was smoky as all hell. I did not get any grease on me when shooting those few rounds but I dont know how the pistol looked afterwards. I'd love to suppress one myself but it's low on my list of cans to buy. Besides I already have a suppressed .45 AR
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 9:38:41 AM EDT
Scollins,
What .40 can is that? Gemtech Evolution40?
How do you like it?
Hows it sound?
Looking to get one for my Glock 40 in MI approves them.
Link Posted: 4/8/2006 8:49:49 PM EDT
It looks like an AAC evolution-40 (www.advanced-armament.com). Supposedly one of the best .40 suppressors out there. Gemtech also has a brand new can called the Blackside .40.

Link Posted: 4/9/2006 12:49:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By cybersniper:
Scollins,
What .40 can is that? Gemtech Evolution40?
How do you like it?
Hows it sound?
Looking to get one for my Glock 40 in MI approves them.



Gemtech SOS-40. I like it a lot. It quiets down the 40S&W quite well. The suggested grease for shooting the can "wet" is rather smoky though (Lubriplate 105.) Water works just as well without all the smoke. You just have to make sure that all the water is blown out before putting it away (potential for corrosion.) I think Gemtech is upgrading the SOS-40 to a Blackside like they did with the 45 ACP can.

A dry 40S&W can would be nice, but those are really setup for subguns, and they weigh a lot more. With the SOS-40, the balance is really nice. The only drawback is the sights are obscured by the can, but that is a common problem for all can manufacturers.
Top Top