Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/16/2007 2:25:42 PM EDT
| I have a glock 23 i want to fit with a Supressor and Ideas? |
AAC Evolution-40 with a Jarvis bbl (HK threading). At least that is what I'm doing to my G35 Here's a link to an article about the Evo-40: www.advanced-armament.com/articles/pdf/sw052206.pdf |
|
IMO, .40S&W isn't worth suppressing. It doesn't suppress effectively. I might reconsider this when AAC or someone else makes a .40 suppressor that works better, but right now it just isn't even close. The above is my opinion. Take it for what it is worth. :) Semper Fidelis, Kent P.S. I have only tried the .40 suppressed on a friends with his AAC Evo 40. Evo 9 rocks, but 45 and 40 leave a lot to be desired. Maybe AAC will make a Black Box .40 as I hear the Black Box 45 is hearing safe and pleasant. |
+1 above. All my research and talking w/company reps lead me to the above conclusion. I picked up a Lone Wolf 23 conversion 9mm threaded barrel for my Evo-9. Still keep the 23 in standard .40 for CCW but drop in the 9mm barrel for "Silent Armadillo Eradication" as stated on the Form 4. YMMV, FH |
The YHM Cobra has a booster system, mine seemed to work fine the times I shot it. |
Just looked at the YHM site. I was thinking of the Wraith-9mm, which has no booster. I didn't know about the Cobra---nice to see that they offer both the recoil enhanced and regular versions. The Wraith would not work reliably on Glocks, but I'm sure the Cobra is fine. |
My Gemtech SOS-40 works quite well with 180 grain loads on my STI. It is a wet suppressor, but even dry it does a good job of suppressing the noise. I don't know what it meters at, but it seems to be hearing safe. Been awhile since I shot it, maybe a few more rounds are in order soon.... The SOS-40 is no longer available, having been replaced by the Blackside 40. I haven't shot the Blackside 40 yet, but I believe it is slightly more quiet than the SOS-40. I also wonder why people don't think the 40 suppresses as well as the 9mm. We are talking a 1mm difference here, and 180 grain ammo is most definately sub-sonic (typcially in the 900-1000 FPS range.) It would seem that is should suppress almost as well as a 9mm. Maybe it is just the particular can they've exposed to? |
I've always wondered about that. As you said, the difference is 9mm and 10mm, doesn't seem that big. Maybe it has something to do with powder charge?? Maybe suppression isn't linear (ex. 9mm is x db, 10 mm is x + y db, 11mm is x + 2y db) in relation to the aperture in the baffles??? |
This is certainly possible, but I'm not an engineer, so I couldn't really say. The bullet size is 1mm larger, or 11%. Does that directly correlate? Maybe. But the comment about powder charges got me thinking. I checked some loading data for 9mm and 40S&W on Winchester's website, and here is what is shows: For a 9mm 147 grain bullet at 895 FPS, it takes 3.9 grains of WSF. For a 40S&W 180 grain bullet at 860 FPS, it takes 5.0 grains of WSF. So the 40S&W powder charge is only 1.1 more grains in actual value, but it is 28.2% more by percentage. So I guess the question is, does that extra 1.1 grains make that much more of a difference? On the absolute value, it doesn't seem like it should, but on the % weight increase, it seems like it would make a big difference. For my own loads, I use Hodgdon Titegroup. With a 147 grain 9mm bullet, it takes 3.6 grains of Titegroup to achieve a 929 FPS muzzle velocity. In 40S&W, it takes 4.7 grains of Titegroup to get the 180 grain bullet going 978. So again, it is a paltry 1.1 grain difference, but a 30.6% increase in weight. Also, the PSI for the 40S&W round is 33,300 whereas the 9mm is 27,500. That means the 40S&W has 21% more PSI in the chamber. Ideally, we should be comparing the same or similar bullet weights. The Winchester website lists a 150 grain 40S&W load 1010 FPS, so that should be subsonic under most conditions. But it still requires 6.0 grains of WSF to get there (but it only generates 21,600 PSI.) We'd have to compare that to the max load on the 9mm 147 grain, which is 4.3 grains of WSF to reach 950 FPS (similar MV.) However, the 9mm pressure has now jumped to 32,300 PSI. I bet a sound comparison of these two loads would have the 40S&W doing quite well. I have a friend with a sound meter, so maybe one of these days I can get some of these loads worked up and tested out in my SOS-40 to see how they sound relative to each other. Maybe the trick with suppressed 40S&W isn't the heaviest bullet available, but a lighter one? I could try some subsonic 150, 155, 180 and 200 grain loads. Hmmm.... |
| I realize I left a lot of holes in my suggestion of linear db increase in sound (notwithstanding the fact that the db scale is logarithmic). Assuming cans of equal length and diameter (and thus equal volume), I think it would be interesting to see the meter results on 9mm and .40S&W. Like you stated, it is VERY difficult to set a control for such an experiment as we must include such factors as pressure, powder charge, velocity, etc. Perhaps the only way to do it would be to fire a 9mm through both cans and compare the sound suppression, so at least you get an idea of how effective each can is with respect to the other. |
Alright, now you are making it sound like WORK!  There is a ton of science in suppressor design, but I also think there is quite a bit of art. The same goes for testing. I think that is where some of the test results from the "website-that-shall-not-be-named" generated a lot of heated debate and controversy. There are just too many variables that have a significant impact on performance, either perceived or emperical.But I think testing each of the various 40 loads, through the same platform on the same day would be a good indication of how the various loads perform, but not as an abosolute comparison to a different caliber in a different can. |
Armory Sponsor