NewYorkjoe Wrote:From reading a recent thread, it seems that gun gabbing degenerates sometimes from sharing information and views to a oneupmanship pissin' contest with strident overtones. Everyone has their own opinions and experience and certainly they are welcome to share them, but how about taking disagreements a little less personally?
For example, if Ken V. wants to inform me that the Sten Mk. II has its barrel ported to bleed gas and reduce bullet velocity and that the silencer is built over the barrel and adds no extra length (after I've already stated that the silencer is "integral" to the weapon), well, that's just fine!
I wasn't necessarily speaking to you Joe, I was speaking to the board at large, and merely elaborating on your statement by addressing
why the "whip-crack of the 9-mm round" was not a problem. And I didn't say that the suppressor on the Sten didn't add any length. (I don't know whether it did or not.) I was merely adding to your statement (which I understand to be correct) about the Sten.
Quote:And, if he wants to state that the sound of the firing pin striking the primer could be discerned before the weapon's action cycles (open bolt), well, he's entitled to that also.
I know that the Sten fires from an open bolt. So does the Schmeisser MP-40, the various Ingram Models, the full-auto UZI, and various other firearms. I made the firing pin reference on another post where we were again talking about revolvers. And I didn't say that it could be discerned, I made the statement in comparing it to all the extraneous noises produced by an autoloader.
Quote:If he wants to inform me that 2-liter pop bottle silencers just aren't practical (when I've already filled a bottle with styrofoam peanuts, reinforced it with duct tape and held it over the barrel of my Ruger Mk II .22 semi (with the front sight removed), just to see/hear), I've no problem with that either.
NOW you give details. In your original post you said: "Expedient supressors can be made from a plastic soda bottle or rubbers (put some protection on your protector), good for one shot."
You didn't make any mention about the size of the plastic bottle, that you filled it with styrofoam, that you reinforced the bottle with duct tape, or that you used a .22. I had always heard about the plastic bottle suppressor, but with no details, so when I tried it, I used a one liter water bottle (I rarely drink soda) and just taped it onto the barrel of a single action revolver chambered in .38 special. It blew the bottle to pieces. I then tried it on a .22 revolver, again, just taping it onto the barrel. It blew the bottle off of the barrel -- splitting it in the process. Same thing with my High Standard .22. As I said to Hipshot49, (in effect) "We didn't do it the same way, so the experiments weren't comparable."
That was the only criticism I made to anything you said. And now that I know how you did it -- and what you did it with -- I take it back. :o
Quote:We need to be able to have an open discussion, opposing views, and honest disagreement/argument a little more impersonally. After all, this isn't Capitol Hill, where you can't disagree with someone without attacking their moral fiber, intellectual development, ancestry, etc.
So maybe we can disengage our self-image, ego, and masculine identity from the discussion of firearms? Whadda ya tink?
NewYorkjoe
Fine with me. The only "negative" statement I recall having made was that Hipshot49 didn't have any experience in suppressing revolvers. Which he misunderstood, and I corrected.
Hindsight being an exact science; what I probably should have said at the outset was, "Yes, revolvers
can be suppressed, it's just harder than it is too suppress an auto-loader." But then, it's also harder to
accurize a revolver than it is an auto-loader as well.
Ken V.