Progress isn’t always a step in the right direction; sometimes so-called “progress” can be a step backwards. The three-round burst mechanism of the M16A2 represents a prime example of this phenomenon, since it was added to satisfy bureaucratic bean-counters and not the needs of the individual rifleman. This trigger is the weak link in a battle-proven and otherwise outstanding weapon. For bean-counters concerned about excessive ammunition consumption on the battlefield, a two-round burst mechanism would have made more sense since the third round out of an M16 commonly misses the target anyway. For individual operators concerned about their own survival, an even better solution would be to use a selector on this particular weapon that does not limit burst length, so the operator can decide the burst length instinctively based upon the situation at hand. But burst length is not the most serious flaw of this trigger mechanism. The design’s primary liability is that it delivers one of three considerably different trigger pulls every time the weapon is fired with the selector set to SEMI. This degrades the operator’s ability to place a shot accurately, and accurate shot placement is normally the point of the exercise… unless one needs to break an ambush or obtain temporary fire superiority to cover movement. If the ability to establish temporary fire superiority is a requirement, then I would argue that three-round burst control is less suitable than the ability to dump the entire magazine if the situation calls for it.

While an M16A1-style trigger provides the operator with more tactical options than the M16A2-style three-round burst trigger, the Steyr AUG full-auto trigger pack is an even better approach to the problem to my way of thinking. Pull the two-stage trigger rearward a little for semiautomatic fire and pull it back fully for full-auto fire. No time is wasted manipulating a selector when full-auto fire is required, and the placement of every shot of semiautomatic fire benefits from a trigger pull that does not vary from one round to the next. The AUG trigger could not be incorporated into an M16 without completely redesigning the weapon. But now owners of any M16 variant can have an AUG-style trigger that represents an outstanding upgrade to weapon performance and actually outperforms the AUG trigger in my opinion. It is called the Tactical Select Fire Trigger System.

Developed by Terry Soper of TAC, Inc. (2501 Walter Lane, Las Cruces, NM 88005; URL http://www.zianet.com/tsoper), the patented TAC Trigger System replaces the selector and trigger components in any M16 variant. U.S. Patent Number 5,623,114 was granted to Soper on April 22, 1997 (the patent can be seen by visiting IBM’s Intellectual Property Network; URL http://www.patents.ibm.com). The SAFE and SEMI functions on any M16 variant remain unchanged when using the TAC Trigger System, but when the selector is set to AUTO, the two-stage trigger functions in a manner similar to the Steyr AUG. Pull back a little for semiautomatic fire and pull back fully for full-auto fire. The TAC Trigger System has two sequential sear release points when the selector is on AUTO; the semiautomatic release point breaks at 5 pounds (2.3 kg) while the full-auto release point requires 8 pounds (3.6 kg) to trip.

Before taking a detailed look at the design and performance of the TAC Trigger System, it would be useful to take a brief look at the design and performance of the three-shot burst mechanism found on the M16A2.

M16A2 Three-Round Burst Trigger

The best thing one can say about the M16A2’s three-round burst mechanism is that it uses fewer components than the more intricate burst mechanism found on Heckler & Koch weapons. The HK design is a ratchet-counting mechanism that holds the sear away from the hammer until the selected number of rounds (2RB or 3RB) have been fired. The beauty of the HK design is that any interruption—such as releasing the trigger or emptying the magazine—resets the counter, so weapon always delivers the selected number of rounds as long as ammunition is available.

While the M16A2 burst mechanism is both robust and less complex, it does not reset the counter when the trigger is released. The so-called “interrupted” ratchet and pawl mechanism always picks up wherever the count was interrupted, so a given burst might consist of one, two or three rounds regardless of the tactical exigencies of the moment. Such unpredictability could cost lives.

Some years ago, several Alaska State Troopers were hunting a man who was on a gruesome killing spree that seemed something like a modern version of the Klondike’s Mad Trapper of the Rat River. A friend and his partner were riding in a helicopter armed with M16A1 rifles, when they spotted the killer. As they approached, the man on the ground shot the trooper he could see through the open door of the approaching helicopter and then ducked behind a small tree for cover. My friend leaned over the body of his dead partner and began to empty a full magazine of tracers from his M16A1, capturing the burst and walking it into the tree. While I’m a great believer in the efficacy of two-round bursts for solving most problems appropriate for full-auto fire from an individual (as opposed to crew-served) weapon, this tactical situation clearly called for a long burst. I should note that it commonly takes 5-7 rounds for an operator of an M16 to capture a long burst and begin to walk the burst back into a target, which was a serial killer in this case. The tree did not provide adequate cover for the killer, whose career abruptly ended in the Alaskan taiga after several days of appalling mayhem. The burst mechanism on an M16A2 would have seriously undermined my friend’s ability to solve that particular problem.

The late Gene Stoner shared my lack of enthusiasm for the M16A2’s burst mechanism. Gene once confided to me, “Engineering a three-round burst into the M16 gives the worst possible burst length for this particular weapon.”

From a strictly engineering rather than an operator’s point of view, the nine-component burst control mechanism now used on the M16A2 is well designed. It is both simple and durable. The mechanism is based upon a six-notch ratchet with an overriding clutch that provides two three-round burst cycles per 360 degree revolution of the ratchet. Each cycling of the hammer turns the rotating cam 60 degrees. Assuming the cycle starts with the pawl in the first shallow notch (the so-called “stage one” notch), the third hammer cycle will move the ratchet a total of 180 degrees to a much deeper notch. The resulting greater movement of the trigger pawl allows the hammer to fall from the auto sear to the burst disconnector, which holds the hammer in place, thereby interrupting the full-auto burst.

From an operator’s point of view, the first thing one notices about the M16A2 three-round burst trigger is that the trigger pull with the selector set on AUTO is about 1 pound (0.45 kg) heavier than the M16A1 trigger. This is because the burst control requires two disconnectors and springs. The burst disconnector cycles the burst cam whether the selector is set to SEMI or AUTO. The design of the burst control’s rotating cam is such that it increases the trigger pull from a minimum of about 7.5 pounds (3.4 kg) to a maximum of about 9.0 pounds (4.1 kg), as the ratchet mechanism cycles from stage one to stage three. Setting the selector to AUTO prevents the semiautomatic disconnector from functioning.

In an age of dwindling marksmanship training in many military services, this variable trigger pull may not seem significant. But this is a proverbial thorn in the side of a rifleman worthy of the name. One of my mentors, Col. Jeff Cooper, has observed that “I have come to the conclusion that trigger control is the heart of the matter… and good trigger action… is the most important single aspect of hitting what you want to shoot at.” Variable trigger pull tends to negate other attributes of the M16A2 (such as adjustable 800 meter sights and heavy contour barrel) designed to improve the effective range of the weapon.

This is not armchair philosophizing. The U.S. Marine Corps, which continues to value rifle marksmanship as the cornerstone of combat effectiveness, experienced a drop in rifle scores when they began using the M16A2 with three-round burst mechanism, according to one published source. This drop in scores was attributed to the inferior and variable trigger pull delivered by the burst mechanism. Furthermore, a Marine unit participating in the Gulf War actually asked permission to deactivate the burst feature on their M16A2 rifles by bending the ratchet control pawl so it could not engage the burst cam. Not only did these Marines get permission, it appears that this field-expedient modification was made by others during Operation Desert Storm.

I should note, however, that many authorities make the case that “good trigger action is not important in weapons intended for combat” or even for the taking of dangerous game. I do not agree. Confidence in one’s ability to place shots well, and to do so quickly, are important factors in the equation that determines an individual’s likelihood of solving a problem under stress—whether that problem is stopping an armed Homo sapiens or a charging Ursus arctos horribilus. A good trigger not only makes a good rifleman more accurate, it makes him distinctly faster. A good trigger, therefore, should make anyone with a modicum of skill a more confident and more effective problem-solver. I believe the Tac Trigger System is a giant step in the right direction for making the M16A2 both more accurate and faster on target.

TAC Two-Stage Trigger

The drop-in conversion kit for the two-stage TAC Trigger System consists of a modified M16 trigger, disconnector, disconnector spring with transfer link, stainless steel pin, and selector. The three-round burst mechanism will be removed during the installation process.

Production of the Tac Trigger System is run by TAC V.P. John Mathis, who is a retired NASA ordnance specialist. The TAC trigger is manufactured from a “green” casting that is CNC milled and drilled, case hardened, and then blued. The TAC trigger includes a recess milled to accommodate a transfer link, which is CNC machined from tool steel. The rear of the trigger is drilled to accept the link pivot pin, which is stainless steel. The disconnector is CNC milled to shape from a stock unit; changes include shortening and reshaping the disconnector extension at the rear of the piece. A stock selector is CNC milled to ensure enough trigger motion and to provide the necessary contact point with the link. The stock disconnector spring is used, but its spring rate can be tailored to adjust the full-auto transition point if necessary. The kit comes with detailed installation instructions, so it is not necessary to be a gunsmith or armorer to install the system. I should note that TAC, Inc. will entertain licensing production to OEMs.

The one point I should emphasize, however, relates to installing this kit on a weapon with a three-round burst control. It is absolutely essential to remove and not reinstall the burst cam and spring. While no modifications are made to the receiver, end-users other than private collectors may wish to engrave a “+” or “+ SEMI” after the “AUTO” selector label.

The weapon with TAC trigger system installed works just like an unmodified weapon when the modified selector is set to SAFE or SEMI.

When the selector is set on AUTO, semiautomatic fire is achieved by pulling the TAC trigger back no farther than its median position. This enables the modified disconnector to perform its hammer engagement function, since the disconnector is not engaged by the selector cam. To obtain full-auto fire, the operator simply pulls the trigger to its extreme rearward position. The rear of the trigger pivots upward until the transfer link engages the selector cam. This pushes the distal link of the transfer link downward, thereby exerting a downward pressure on the disconnector extension. The disconnector pivots rearward, which prevents engagement of the hammer and middle hammer hook. The auto sear engages the upper hammer hook until it is struck by the forward-moving bolt carrier. This strike releases the hammer to fire another round. Full-auto fire continues until the trigger is released, which enables the lower hammer notch to re-engage the trigger nose, ending the full-auto burst.

Learning to use the Tac Trigger System is both easy and instinctive. With the selector set on AUTO, the operator can instantly choose to fire a single round or a burst of any length without the distraction and time necessary to reposition the selector, which takes about 1/2 second. This capability can pay substantial tactical dividends. Maintenance requirements are improved because the TAC system eliminates the two weak links of the three-round burst system: the burst cam and the burst cam clutch spring. The TAC system requires no special maintenance.

While the Austrian and Australian armies and a number of U.S. agencies are quite happy with the Steyr AUG’s two-stage trigger, one U.S. Army wag suggested that “our troops are not smart enough to handle a two-stage trigger” on an M16. I categorically disagree. Transition to this trigger would be fast and instinctive for anyone capable of tying shoelaces, let alone trained soldiers.

A final footnote relates to the use of the TAC Trigger System by private collectors. The TAC system cannot be used to convert a semiautomatic rifle into a full-auto weapon, so BATF has issued a ruling letter authorizing the distribution of the system for the purpose of retrofitting machine guns on the registry. The system will work on all Colt-brand and Colt-spec 5.56mm and 9mm variants. The system may or may not work in a given aftermarket receiver, depending on how far it varies from Colt specifications. The TAC Trigger System will also work in guns converted to full auto with registered drop-in auto sears, but it will not work with so-called Lightning Links. The TAC trigger will even work with .22 LR and 9mm conversion kits. If demand warrants, the patented trigger will also be produced for Kalashnikov-based weapons such as the AK47, AKM and Galil.

The Bottom Line

I believe the TAC Trigger System is an excellent and cost-effective upgrade for making the M16A2 and M4 both more accurate and faster on target when the selector is set to SEMI. With the selector set to AUTO, the weapon delivers semiautomatic fire or reliable bursts of any length the operator decides, rather than delivering a burst of arbitrary length decided—not by the operator—but by the happenstance of ratchet orientation within the rifle’s burst-control mechanism. The capricious nature of the three-round burst mechanism clearly subverts the operator’s full control of the weapon and therefore subverts his ability to control the tactical environment. Furthermore, the TAC system saves a potentially invaluable 1/2 second if an operator suddenly finds the need to go from semiautomatic to full-auto fire. This latter feature of TAC’s two-stage trigger would make it a valuable upgrade for the M16A1 and its variants, as well. Accuracy and speed are essential ingredients to the skilled use of arms, and the TAC Trigger System delivers

Genius in Suppressor Design

The design of sound suppressors took a quantum jump forward on May 13, 1986, when the U.S. Patent Office awarded Patent Number 4588043 to Charles A. “Mickey” Finn. In my opinion, the three baffle designs covered by this patent represent the most significant achievement in sound suppression technology over the preceding three-quarters of a century. Not since Hiram P. Maxim’s Patent Number 916885 was awarded on March 30, 1909, had the field of silencer design seen such genius applied to the problem of stealthy shooting. Taking the time to understand how Finn’s innovative baffles work is a great way to jump well up the learning curve on how to effectively dampen the sound signatures of gunshots. In fact, one can make the argument that mastering the information in Finn’s patent will provide the moral equivalent of a Master’s Degree in sound suppression.

Much of the progress in the field of suppressor design throughout the late 1980s as well as the 1990s has been stimulated by analyzing the principals revealed by Finn’s work, and then applying those lessons in new ways. That, in a nutshell, is how progress in science and technology always works.

The easiest way to get your hands on Finn’s patent is to visit IBM’s Intellectual Property Network on the World Wide Web (the URL is http://www.patents.ibm.com). Once you’ve digested this patent, searching the database with key words such as “silencer” or “suppressor” or Boolean phrases such as “silencer + gun” or “suppressor + firearm” will reveal a number of additional patents worth studying if you are a serious student of suppressor design. Using a Boolean search phrase will help avoid a lot of extraneous hits related to automobile mufflers and silencers for air conditioners. But the cornerstone of such a quest for knowledge should be Finn’s ten-page Patent Number 4588043.

The patent describes three distinctly different baffle designs based upon a central concept—the slanted sidewall—which is defined as “a cylinder whose axis passes through the central axis of the sound suppressor at a predetermined angle so as to direct propulsion gases passing through the opening.” The slanted sidewall directs a gas jet diagonally across the gas stream following the bullet, deflecting a portion of that gas stream away from the central axis of the suppressor, where the gases can be slowed and cooled, robbing them of energy that would be perceived as sound. Four of the twelve figures in the patent are included here.

Figure 1 shows the preferred design of Finn’s Type 1 baffle (called the “first embodiment” in the patent, it has subsequently come to be known as the Type 1 baffle by suppressor cognoscenti). While this is a versatile design with a great deal of subtlety, it requires a fair amount of machining. I have seen simplified versions of the Type 1 baffle used for some applications. In fact, a photograph accompanying this discussion shows a Type 1 baffle simplified as much as possible; it’s just a flat disk with a slanted sidewall. Two noteworthy aspects of the preferred embodiment of the Type 1 baffle include the use of asymmetric surfaces to maximize turbulence and the use of geometry to enhance the effectiveness of the slanted sidewall. The Type 2 and Type 3 baffles also incorporate radial openings into the rear of the slanted sidewall (see Figures 2 and 3, respectively). These openings are designed to increase the diagonal gas jet formed by the slanted sidewall.

The preferred embodiment of the Type 3 baffle includes an integral conical spacer and a flat baffle. The baffle incorporates slots in the rear surface that communicate with an annular chamber inside the baffle. The annular chamber dumps gas into the rear of the slanted sidewall via three radial ports. A cut-off chord in the rear surface of the baffle (which is perpendicular to the aforementioned two slots) provides a large third pathway into the annular chamber inside the baffle.

The preferred embodiment of the Type 3 baffle also includes a mousehole at the wide part of the conical spacer (see Figure 4). This mousehole has several functions. It permits the flow of gasses from the coaxial expansion chamber (formed by the conical spacer) back into the central axis of the suppressor. And it releases gas pressure from the front of the coaxial chamber, which prevents the buildup of back pressure that would prevent more gas from entering the rear of the coaxial chamber.

While one can learn a great deal about the outstanding Type 3 baffle from the text and drawings of Finn’s patent, there is no substitute for seeing the actual object being described. Therefore, the photos accompanying this discussion provide details of the Type 3 baffle used in the Large Suppressor designed for the MP5SD-N. The Large Suppressor was manufactured by Heckler & Koch for the U.S. Navy under a licensing agreement from Qual-A-Tec in Oceanside, California. Heckler & Koch used a proportionately smaller but otherwise identical Type 3 baffle in the Small Suppressor, which was designed for the HK P9S pistol as well as the MP5-N and MP5K-N submachine guns. While the designs of HK’s Small and Large Suppressors are discussed in a two-part article that appeared in The Small Arms Review [see 2(4):28-32 and 2(5):28-31], photos illustrating the details of a Type 3 baffle as used by Heckler & Koch were not available at that time.

Note from the photos that the Type 3 baffle design used by Heckler & Koch moved the mousehole from the front edge (wide part) of the conical spacer to the rear (narrow part) of the conical spacer opposite the front edge of the slanted sidewall. Placing the mousehole here increases the efficiency of the slanted sidewall, directing its diagonal gas jet into the coaxial expansion chamber formed by the spacer.

Heckler and Koch began producing robust, accurate and quiet silencers based on Mickey Finn’s Type 3 baffle in 1986. The specific suppressor designs were developed by Finn’s company Qual-A-Tec and manufactured under at HK’s facilities at Chantilly and Sterling, Virginia. The photos of HK’s Small Suppressor accompanying this article were provided by Hays Parks, who was involved with the Navy’s development of an effective 9x19mm subsonic round in the 1980s based on a 147 grain projectile. The goal was to develop a 9x19mm cartridge that would provide an optimum mix of accuracy, incapacitation of the target, and lack of overpenetration. The latter criterion was important since the mission of certain elements within the Navy had been expanded to include in extremis missions such as counter-terrorism and hostage rescue. The HK P9S pistol and Small Suppressor were used during the course of this research program, which spawned the Winchester 147 grain JHP subsonic round that has stimulated the proliferation of 147 grain rounds in the marketplace.

The U.S. Navy is seldom seen as the originator of innovative developments in small-arms ammunition. But in the case of the 9x19mm JHP subsonic round, Navy innovation made a significant contribution not only to military technology, but to technology available to the law-enforcement community and private citizens as well. (The Navy’s development of this round is discussed at length in Silencer History and Performance, Volume 1; ISBN 0-87364-909-5). It is reasonable to assume that 147 grain JHP will play a major role wherever 9mm ammunition is used for decades to come. While the HK 9mm suppressors using Mickey Finn’s Type 3 baffle are now out of production, they remain in the Navy’s inventory, and they should provide service well into the future as well.

Most important of all, Mickey Finn’s innovative baffles and suppressor construction have fundamentally changed the field of silencer design. If one uses a yardstick based upon the number of practical and effective suppressors developed by other designers based directly or indirectly upon the principals revealed by a designer’s work, then one could make the case that Finn’s slanted sidewall baffles represent the most important contribution ever made to the field of sound suppressor design.

That may overstate the case only slightly, for Hiram P. Maxim provided the first commercially successful silencer designs, proving that gunshot noise could be reduced substantially by a simple, compact and practical device that could succeed in the marketplace. We might not be having this discussion at all without Maxim’s contributions. Furthermore, Maxim’s outstanding designs still work pretty well by modern standards even though they date back to the era of primitive canvas and wire biplanes.

When Finn turned his genius to suppressor design, the state of the art was not much different from World War II technology developed during the era of the radial engine. Finn’s work catapulted the field of suppressor design into the Space Age, providing a quantum jump in the state of the art and fundamentally changing the direction of subsequent developments. It is my contention that the contributions made by Hiram P. Maxim and Charles A. “Mickey” Finn to the field of suppressor design can best be described by the word “genius” since they have contributed “extraordinary creativity” to the field of suppressor design. That’s quite a legacy.

Organized and sponsored by The Small Arms Review, the 1999 Silencer Trials drew manufacturers, government personnel, scientists, and journalists from around the country to Knob Creek, Kentucky, on October 5 and 6. Even Jane’s Infantry Weapons sent their small arms editor. For only the second time in history, industry leaders came together for a rigorous testing and evaluation of both new and established products. Some folks even brought World War II and Vietnam era silencers for testing. This event was not intended to be a contest with winners and losers, but rather an opportunity for learning. Such a gathering is unprecedented in the small-arms industry, with competitors coming together in a spirit of cooperation to improve everyone’s understanding of the art. In fact, I can’t think of another industry in the United States where competitors come together in a similar show of scholarship and fraternity. I am not only impressed by the caliber of minds in the silencer industry, I am impressed by the spirit of the people within this industry.

Doug Melton of D.H. Melton Enterprises, for example, really entered into the spirit of the Trials by bringing four new untried prototype designs for his Sound Master suppressed Ruger Mark II pistol, with the intent of selecting the best for subsequent production. He didn’t try to posture before his peers by bringing a really souped-up system that was too complex or expensive for production (unlike some computer manufacturers when submitting systems to computer magazines for comparison with other brands). Melton simply brought four new ideas to see how they measured up to his currently produced design. Melton also brought a newly designed suppressed Ruger 10/22 rifle to see how it compared to his older but outstanding suppressed rifle. He exemplified the spirit shown by the other participants.

Several manufacturers took this sense of fraternal cooperation about as far as it will go, taking apart their silencers for folks to examine. Tim LaFrance of LaFrance Specialties, for example, disassembled his awesome sound suppressor for the .50 caliber Browning M2 heavy machine gun, describing at length the principals of its operation, the R&D that went into its development, and the manufacturing techniques used to carve the complex guts of the device from a solid block of titanium. Can you imagine the major players of any other industry sharing so much information with their peers? I must confess that I really admire these guys as people as well as suppressor designers.

In fact, a lot of exceptional folks made the very ambitious SAR’s 1999 Silencer Trials possible. Everyone pitched in where needed, making this very much a grass-roots effort with a proverbial “cast of thousands.” Dan Shea, the general manager of The Small Arms Review undertook the considerable task of overseeing the event, with Joanne French from SAR organizing all aspects of the event . Dr. Philip Dater, Dan Shea and myself worked out the sound testing regimen. Stan Andrewski worked out the testing regimen for accuracy, with LMO supplying the Ransom Rest. Jeff Hoffman of Black Hills Ammunition donated all of the centerfire ammo used for testing. Two physicists, Drs. Chris Luchini and Reagan Cole, brought the necessary equipment to record pressure versus time data as well as frequency data, providing a whole new level of performance analysis.

So much was going on at once that it took a lot of folks working together like symphony musicians to orchestrate the complex flow of the event. Dan Shea was the conductor, making sure that every player knew what to do when. I was the producer, making sure everyone followed the script and making sure we maintained quality control throughout the data-gathering process. We had five people involved with gathering and recording sound data, two people at any given time handling the shooting and proper alignment of the suppressed firearms (under the leadership of Matt Smith), one person handling the chronograph (three different people shared this assignment), one person moving the firearms from a supervised storage area in the shade to the sound-testing station and thence to the accuracy-testing station, another person handling the movement of data sheets with the weapon and the filling out of duplex targets (one registered behind the other, so both SAR and the manufacturer each got identical witnessed targets for their records), and one person taking the appropriate ammunition from shaded storage to the shooting position.

Another cast of characters took over during the accuracy phase of the testing. The entire process seemed rather like a running of the gauntlet—a trial by ordeal—to those of us immersed in the frenetic nuts and bolts of the event. Occasional hiccups in the process did occur, but the impressive esprit de corps among the participants made working through the occasional problem as graceful as possible. I was quite impressed by the enthusiasm, flexibility and grace of the participants working under difficult technical, logistic and time constraints.

Why go to so much trouble and expense and heartburn? It is true that impartial observers can provide a reasonably satisfactory subjective comparison of suppressor performance when several silencers are compared side by side on the same day. This is how the British National Physical Laboratory compared silencer performance during World War II. Even rigorously conducted subjective comparisons have their limitations, however.

Subjective comparisons can differ substantially depending on an individual’s ability to perceive different frequencies. People who have lost their ability to hear high-frequency sounds, such as an old gunnery sergeant exposed to years of intense impulse noise, might evaluate suppressors quite differently than someone with a normal frequency response. Consider, for example, two suppressors that eliminate different frequencies and yet produce the same peak sound pressure level (abbreviated SPL). For people with normal hearing, the suppressor that is especially good at eliminating the higher frequencies of a suppressed gunshot will seem quieter than the suppressor that eliminates predominantly lower frequencies. The gunny would prefer the suppressor that was better at eliminating low-frequency sound (since he can’t hear the higher frequencies anyway).

There are other limitations to subjective testing. The system breaks down if many suppressors must be compared; it’s just too hard for any person to keep track of too much sensory input. (Ask, for example, any modern fighter pilot about sensory overload in the cockpit during combat.) Then there is the problem of how to describe one’s subjective impression of sound signatures. Descriptions such as “pop” and “whoosh” don’t really convey any useful information, nor do descriptive words conjure up the same mental image to everyone.

Measuring the actual amount of sound pressure produced by a suppressed gunshot and converting the data to a simple scale that mimics the subjective impression of the human ear (the decibel scale) provides a rigorous and objective benchmark that can be compared to benchmarks such as the threshold of human hearing and other sounds of known intensity. Any number of samples can be compared. The decibel reading of the sound pressure level isn’t the whole story, but the SPL represents the most objective single data point suitable for measuring how quiet a suppressed gunshot is. The SPL in decibels also provides the means for comparing that suppressed gunshot to any number of other suppressed gunshots and as well as to the same firearm without a sound suppressor.

Gathering the data for such evaluations is time-consuming. I normally evaluate just two or three suppressors during a typical day at the range, when I’m working by myself. Testing scores of suppressors on the same day required a lot of organization, specialized equipment, and—most of all—help from a lot of enthusiastic people.

In terms of the aforementioned equipment, we used two precision impulse meters: a Brüel and Kjaer Model 2209 Impulse Precision Sound meter with a B&K Type 4136 1/4 inch pressure type microphone; and a Larson Davis Model 800-B meter with Model 2530-1133 random incidence microphone. The meters were set to Peak Hold and “A” weighting, with the microphones placed 1.00 meter to the left of the muzzle or front of the sound suppressor. Time domain and frequency domain data were collected using a computerized digital recording oscilloscope built by Dr. Reagan Cole; this system also used a B&K Type 4136 1/4 inch pressure type microphone. Projectile velocities were measured using a P.A.C.T. MKIII timer/chronograph with MKV skyscreens set 24.0 inches apart and the start screen 8.0 feet from the muzzle, and hard copies of the data were printed after each string using a Hewlett-Packard Model 82240B battery-powered printer via infrared data link.

Accuracy testing was conducted to look for design flaws. One of my own suppressed Ruger Mark II pistols, for example, only delivers 4+ inch groups at 25 yards and the projectiles leave oval holes in a target (suggesting extreme bullet yaw), while another suppressed Mark II that I own delivers 1/4 inch groups and perfectly round holes at the same distance. Since these pistols exhibit a ten-fold difference in accuracy, clearly one manufacturer is doing something right, while the other is doing something very wrong. The accuracy testing phase of the 1999 Silencer Trials was intended to reveal such disparities.

Ransom Rests were used for the accuracy phase of the testing, and here the manufacturers or owners of the suppressed firearm were allowed to do the shooting so that they could be confident that the results were as good as possible. Sandbags were used if Ransom did not offer a pistol adaptor for a given handgun.

Stan Andrewski handled the accuracy testing at the trials. The manufacturer removed the pistol grips, and Andrewski mounted the pistol in the machine rest. When the manufacturer was happy with the adjustments, the manufacturer himself would then do the shooting. While the Ransom Pistol Rest is a true machine rest, the rifle rest still depends upon shooter skill. Therefore, manufacturers were allowed to nominate a designated shooter, and a number of them opted for this approach. Mark White of Sound Technology frequently served as the designated shooter, which was a tribute both to his shooting ability and the to respect of his peers. No one seemed to worry that he might do less than his best when shooting a competitor’s system. In fact, White shot a one-hole group using Black Hills .44 Specials with the suppressed Ruger 77/44 rifle made by John’s Guns. Folks were so impressed by the sound reduction and accuracy of this system that three people ordered a rifle from John Tibbetts on the spot.

What about the specific results of the testing? We’re still working on data analysis, which will be published in book form by Moose Lake Publishing LLC, the parent company of The Small Arms Review. We’ll include a brief history of each company, sound and velocity data, detailed descriptions of silencers and integrally silenced guns (including length, diameter, weight, and construction details), plus a photo of each item being tested, as well as the test target used to determine system accuracy. Drs. Chris Luchini and Reagan Cole will contribute a chapter on their frequency and time-domain analyses, Dr. Philip Dater will contribute a chapter on testing methodology and using sound suppressors as hearing protection devices, and Mark White will contribute a chapter on the latest developments in subsonic ammunition for centerfire rifles, including an evaluation of the subsonic 7.62x51mm ammunition from Black Hills Ammunition and Engel Ballistics Research. We’ll also provide a discussion that will try to synthesize all of the data into simple-to-digest conclusions.

We’re also trying to work out some new quantitative ways to compare systems, such as using a plot to compare sound reductions versus velocities generated by integrally suppressed guns, and we may be able to incorporate price versus performance analyses as well. I’m working with several established scientists and engineers to develop meaningful new ways for comparing system performance in easily digested ways. This will take several more months of work. Publication of the book will be reported in a future issue of The Small Arms Review.

For the moment, the bottom line for me is that I was impressed by the state of the art exhibited by all of the participants. Performance that was unthinkable just a few years ago is now commonplace. It was a real privilege to study so many outstanding products, and that study has just begun. My heartfelt thanks go out to the many folks from throughout the industry who made this stimulating and historic event possible. We will all learn a great deal from this considerable effort.
Participating Manufacturers

Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090; phone 605-348-5150; fax 605-348-9827

CCF/Swiss, Inc., P.O. Box 29009, Richmond, VA 29009; phone 804-740-4926; fax 804-740-9599; URL http://www.ccfa.com

D.H. Melton Company, Inc., 1739 E. Broadway Road, Suite 1-161, Tempe, AZ 85282; phone 480-967-6218; fax 480-902-0783

Don Austin Wagenknecht, 12400 Blue Ridge Blvd., Grandview, MO 64030; phone 816-765-2539; fax 913-829-6999; e-mail daw@sprintmail.com

Engel Ballistic Research, 544A Alum Creek Road, Smithville, TX 78957; 512-360-5327; fax 512-360-2652

Gemtech, P.O. Box 3538, Boise, ID 83703; phone 208-939-7222; fax 208-939-7804; URL http://www.gem-tech.com

J.M.B. Distribution, 4291 Valley Quail Street, Westerville, OH 43081; phone 614-891-5784; e-mail JBurg@mailbox.iwaynet.net

John’s Guns, 3010A Hwy. 155 N., Palestine, TX 75801; phone 903-729-8251; fax 903-723-4653

LaFrance Specialties, P.O. Box 178211, San Diego, CA 92177; phone 619-293-3373; URL http://www.NAIT.com/LaFrance

S&H Arms of Oklahoma, P.O. Box 121, Owasso, OK 74055; phone 918-272-9894; fax 918-272-9898

Serbu Firearms, 6001 Johns Road, Suite 511, Tampa, FL 33634; phone 813-854-1532

Sound Technology, P.O. Box 391, Pelham, AL 35124; phone 205-664-5860; e-mail rem700p@sprintmail.com; URL http://www.hypercon/soundtech

Special Op’s Shop, P.O. Box 978, Madisonville, TN 37354; phone 423-442-7180; URL www.compfxnet.com/opshop

Summers Machine Enterprises, 1303 Pauls Airport Road, Thomasville, NC 27360; phone and fax 336-472-6394; e-mail badgerf4@aol.com

TBA Suppressors, 10998 Leadbetter Road, Ashland, VA 23005; phone and fax 804-550-3159; e-mail TBASuppressors@erols.com

Urbach Precision Mfg., 1529 Axe Drive, Garland, TX 75041; phone 972-864-0848; fax 972-864-0571

Young Manufacturing, Inc., 5621 N. 53rd Avenue, Glendale AZ 85301-6011; phone 623-915-3889; fax 623-915-3746; e-mail sales@newriverarms.com, URL http://www.newriverarms.com

SAR’s Suppressor Technology Editor Al Paulson was recently asked what he thought were good choices for someone’s “Kit” in the event of needing suppression on a firearm. The ensuing article provides some interesting perspectives and choices, and we hope this helps answer some questions for the readers- Dan

Who knows if this Y2K business is media hype or not? Friends who are computer programmers disagree. One suggests fixing code is simplistic stuff. Another points out that even the first release of Windows 98 was not Y2K compliant. He suggests that the Y2K problem is much more subtle and pervasive than a lot of people believe, and not all the Y2K problems will appear on the first day of the Year 2000. There are several minefields that will appear on subsequent critical dates as well. He also points out that a lot of public utilities use an archaic programing language that has not been taught at the college level in decades, so there are a limited number of qualified programmers to resolve Y2K issues for the many mainframes still using this old language. His personal solution to the Y2K issue was to buy a generator, bury a fuel tank, put in a well with hand pump, stockpile gallon cans of freeze-dried food and crates of ammo, and add some sound suppressors to his kit. That got me to thinking. What sound suppressors would I want in my Y2K kit? They would fall into several mission categories: small game hunting, big game hunting, general tactical, and long-range tactical.

Selecting silencers for a Y2K kit is somewhat daunting, since this is the golden age of silencer design. The state of the art has grown considerably in the last decade, and the industry is rich with talented companies making diverse and outstanding products. Some of these manufacturers are relatively large and well known, while others are small shops catering to small but fiercely loyal clienteles. Both big and small companies produce some really excellent products. The net result is that the consumer has a plethora of outstanding sound suppressors to choose from. The following are some of my personal favorites, which I hope will stimulate your thought processes concerning what your own needs may be. You may wish to add a few suppressors or integrally suppressed arms that will serve similar needs, be they from these or other manufacturers.

If food availability becomes a problem, the easiest way to supplement your existing stores is the hunting of small game. If local laws permit the use of suppressed firearms for hunting, you will be at a social and strategic advantage by using such tools.

Small Game Hunting

The criteria for selecting the best silenced arm for hunting small game will depend upon several factors. Can you hunt openly (i.e., with a rifle) or must you hunt surreptitiously (i.e., with a concealed handgun) to avoid alarming nearby farmers or residents, or to avoid giving away the location of your favorite hunting ground? Is visual stealth important? This would favor an integrally silenced arm, which the uninitiated will view as a target-barreled gun. Or is maximum service life more important? This would favor the use of a visually conspicuous muzzle can. Finally, does your skill level permit the use of a handgun to feed the family?
I now live in a semi-rural area that features individual homes and small subdivisions interspersed with small farms and woodlots. Hunting is frowned upon but small game abounds. Since hikers are welcome, I could go for a walk at dawn or dusk (when most game is especially active) with a day pack and an integrally silenced pistol hidden under a long shirt. It would be a simple matter to use a single well-placed shot to collect a rabbit, squirrel or game bird for the pot within the 50 yard effective range of a good silenced pistol.

In fact, I regularly did this when I was a graduate student at the University of Alaska—Fairbanks. With the blessing of campus security, I’d hike or ski the two miles to campus with a Ruger Mark I (not silenced to conform to local game laws). Since most of the two miles were woods, and since homes and cabins were rare, I frequently collected several snowshoe hares or grouse for the evening meal on the way home. All UAF security asked of me was that I keep the gun unloaded while on campus. While one saw people with long arms on campus routinely in those gentler days (often grad students who needed protection while conducting field research in bear country), it still would have been tacky to walk from class to class with a rifle on my shoulder. The pistol resided in my day pack, which was a ubiquitous and therefore invisible accouterment of campus life. The pistol was a graceful and discreet solution for adding meat to the table of a starving grad student.

If both game and neighbors are plentiful, my own bias would be to use an integrally silenced pistol that features a tensioned barrel to minimize barrel harmonics. Such pistols by manufactures like Gemtech, Sound Technology, and the D.H. Melton Company (to name a few) can be easily holstered and carried unobtrusively. This assumes the operator limits his or her shots to a range where first-round kills are assured and great care is taken to ensure that no livestock, hikers, or buildings lie behind the target.

If you can hunt openly in a rural setting, then I like a good silenced .22 rifle, which will greatly extend a hunter’s effective range. If visual stealth or maximum suppression are required, then I’m particularly fond of D.H. Melton’s Sound-Master integrally silenced Ruger 10/22, which can deliver a sound signature that is within 2 decibels of action noise when using subsonic ammunition, or it can deliver maximum practical subsonic projectile velocity by using high velocity ammunition, when maximizing penetration is important.

If I were cynical about the duration of problems following Y2K, then I’d opt for a muzzle can rather than an integrally suppressed .22 rimfire. Any integrally suppressed arm will have a finite lifespan, limited by the infinitesimally slow accumulation of lead and hard carbon residue inside the suppressor wherever there is porting. I have x-rays documenting this process, but I can’t publish them without giving up the design secrets of the manufacturer. For most end-users, this process is so slow as to be irrelevant; you’ll be able to leave these guns to your grandkids. But if you expect to hunt game for food on a frequent and long-term basis, then using a well-designed muzzle can might increase the number of rounds you could put through the system tenfold.

Perhaps the most thought-provoking muzzle can design in the marketplace is the Millennium .22 suppressor from Sound Technology. It’s very quiet. It’s as tough as a Russian T34 tank. Lead and carbon accumulation is minimal. Furthermore, the design will probably tolerate more lead and carbon build-up than any design I’ve seen, which means it could well deliver the longest service life. Finally, the Millennium’s mounting system is practical in the extreme.

For mounting to a rifle or pistol, it features a 5/8 inch, hardened steel stud with NF, left-hand threads. The muzzle of a heavy (target-weight) rifle or pistol barrel is counterbored, crowned and threaded to accept this stud. This arrangement has a number of practical advantages. (1) The new barrel crown is protected by the deep, threaded socket. (2) The use of internal threading in front of the new crown eliminates any expansion of the bore that might be caused by the use of conventional outside threading. Such expansion adversely affects accuracy. (3) The use of left-hand threading ensures that the muzzle can tightens to the weapon with each shot, since the barrels use RH rifling so the resulting torque from each shot is applied in a right-handed vector. (4) No external thread protector is required. (5) This design assures proper axial alignment and it compensates for face wear over the long haul. (6) The same suppressor can be swapped between rifles and pistols. Sound Technology’s Millennium suppressor would be part of a very practical and durable system for hunting small game after the dawn of Y2K and well into the new millennium.

Big Game Hunting

For most residents of the United States, deer are the most readily accessible large game. Decades of experience hunting big game in Alaska has given me some definite biases. One of these biases is my confidence in the efficacy of heavy bullets of large diameter. My standard gun for bear protection was a Winchester Model 95 in .405 caliber. It stopped three bears at very close range with a single shot each time. Another of my favorites was the .44 Special round, which proved to be very accurate and effective on the black-tailed deer of Kodiak and Afognak, consistently providing one-shot kills. Coincidentally, this is a subsonic round and well suited to employment with a silencer. An integrally suppressed Ruger 77/44 rifle would be my first choice for discreetly taking deer-sized game.

The suppressed Ruger 77/44 from John’s Guns is an especially attractive system. Featuring a 16.25 inch barrel, and a 1.25×20 inch suppressor tube of 4140 steel finished in a handsome but discreet matt blue, this suppressed Ruger 77/44 has an overall length of just 39 inches. More importantly, it has a superbly quiet sound signature, and it’s as accurate as the unsuppressed rifle. This system from John’s Guns is my suppressed rifle of choice for the taking of deer-sized animals.

General Tactical

Any tactical requirements related to Y2K would probably relate to a possible breakdown of the social order, which could manifest itself as looting, or as an increased incidence of robbery, burglary, and carjackings. For protection from robbery and carjackings, it’s hard to beat a concealed and unsuppressed handgun of major caliber, preferably in .45 ACP according to my biases. For home defense, however, it’s hard to beat a 5.56x45mm carbine fitted with a sound suppressor to preserve the family’s short-term and long-term hearing if the weapon must be fired. One of my favorite systems is a select-fire M16 with 11.5 inch barrel and a quick-mount suppressor. A quick-mount suppressor is handy because some tactical situations call for making as much noise as possible, such as the need to gain temporary fire superiority to disengage from a superior force or to flank the enemy using fire-and-movement tactics.

One of my favorite quick-mount cans for the M16 family of weapons is the Model M4 3L sound suppressor from Suppressed Tactical Weapons. STW’s Model M4 3L features a patented three-lug quick-mounting system which is the most robust and trouble-free quick mount in the business. Designed by Carl O’Quinn and Andy Andrews, STW’s M4 3L suppressor has just four parts. The rear end cap and suppressor guts are machined from a single block of solid titanium. This ingenious monobloc design does not use baffles and spacers in any conventional sense. In my opinion, STW’s very efficient, one-piece suppression module represents one of the most important technological advances in the history of suppressor design.

Crafted entirely out of G2 titanium, the M4 3L suppressor has an overall length of 8.5 inches. Since the quick mount slips over the weapon’s barrel for 1.6 inches, the suppressor only adds 6.9 inches to the overall length of the weapon. The diameter of the silencer is 1.3 inches and the weight is an astonishingly light 14.0 ounces. The M4 3L runs 6-11 ounces lighter than the other quick-mount systems in the marketplace. Only the superbly crafted, screw-mount titanium Viper Model 3016 from the Special Op’s Shop is comparably light, but this smallest Viper variant produces a much louder sound signature. An M16 carbine with STW’s M4 3L suppressor provides an outstanding system for the up-close and personal requirements of family defense and the repelling of boarders.

Long-Range Tactical

Some folks live in open areas where they can see trouble coming from a considerable distance. To deal with such problems, it’s hard to beat a precision rifle chambered for 7.62x51mm ammunition. My own bias would be to use a system that featured a sound suppressor since, as the old Finnish proverb explains, “A silencer does not make a soldier silent, but it does make him invisible.” Using a suppressed rifle greatly facilities the ability to engage a superior force at a distance.

Furthermore, if the rifle features a barrel with a 1 in 10 inch twist, then the operator could also use high-performance, 200 grain 7.62x51mm Precision Bonded Subsonic (PBS) hollowpoint ammunition from Engel Ballistics Research that will give accurate shot placement, good penetration, and reliable expansion at subsonic velocities. Thus the operator could place high velocity shots reliably out to perhaps 800 yards using conventional match-grade service ammunition or 1,000 yards using VLD ammo. This same rifle could also be used to provide virtually silent hits into 1 MOA at 100 yards by using EBR’s PBS rounds. This would be a very versatile system suitable for a wide variety of hunting or tactical applications.

There are a number of outstanding .30 caliber suppressors in the marketplace. One of my favorites is the TPR-S suppressor from Gemtech. The TPR-S is very quiet with supersonic ammo, and it has a large enough bullet passage to use with subsonic ammo when the rifle barrel has a 1 in 10 twist rate. (Some other .30 caliber cans have tight bores that require a 1 in 8 rate of twist with subsonic ammo.) One of the best features of the Gemtech suppressor is that it features a spring-loaded quick mount that snaps onto two asymmetric lugs of a patented muzzle brake called the Bi-Lock. Not only does this allow the operator to mount or dismount the can in a few seconds, it also means that the rifle returns to the same zero every time the suppressor is mounted. Screw-mount suppressors will frequently require re-zeroing every time they are mounted, unless a torque wrench is used to mount them with the same number of inch-pounds every time the can is installed.

Final Thoughts

Is all this concern about Y2K insightful or just so much hokum? Only time will tell. While you might never use that new-in-the-box generator or a basement full of freeze-dried food, a careful collection of suppressed firearms would serve you well for years to come, whether or not you and your loved ones are bitten by the Millennium Bug. A good suppressed .22 rimfire rifle or pistol, a silenced .44 Special rifle, a 5.56mm carbine with quick mount suppressor, and a silenced rifle of .30 caliber should prove to be practical tools that will cover a wide spectrum of requirements in the new millennium. But this selection is a very personal one, based upon my own experiences and biases. What suppressed weapons would best fill your own needs as the new millennium approaches? I hope the preceding discussion has stimulated your own decision-making process.

D.H. Melton Company
Dept. SAR
1739 E. Broadway Road, Suite 1-161
Tempe, AZ 85282
phone 602-967-6218, fax 602-902-0783

Gemtech
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 3538
Boise, ID 83701
phone 208-939-7222, fax 208-939-7804
URL http://www.gem-tech.com

Engel Ballistic Research, Inc.
Dept. SAR
544A Alum Creek Road
Smithville, Texas 78957
phone 512-360-5327, fax 512-360-2652
e-mail engelbr@swbell.net

John’s Guns
Dept. SAR
3010A Hwy. 155 North
Palestine, TX 75801
phone 903-729-8251, fax 903-723-4653

Sound Technology
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 391
Pelham, AL 35124
phone and fax 205-664-5860
e-mail rem700p@sprintmail.com
URL http://www.hypercon.com/soundtech

Suppressed Tactical Weapons, Inc.
Dept. SAR
6911 Bill Poole Road
Rougemont, NC 27572
phone 919-471-6778, fax 919-471-3314
e-mail raymonda@earthlink.net

Special Op’s Shop
Dept. SAR
P.O. Box 978
Madisonville, TN 37354
phone 423-442-7180
URL http://www.compfxnet.com/opshop

Accessories for the USP45 Tactical and Glock 17/18/19

Pretty much any pistol of interest to the armed professional or the serious collector can benefit from some well-conceived accessories. Here are some interesting gadgets that should tantalize anyone with an H&K USP45 Tactical Pistol, the H&K Mark 23, as well as the large and medium-sized 9x19mm Glock pistols.

The first noteworthy bit of technology is a very well engineered quick-mount folding stock for the Glock 18 machine pistol manufactured by Capital City Firearms (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 29009, Richmond, VA 23242; phone 804-740-4926; fax 804-740-9599), which is also a licensed importer/exporter of firearms.

Glock Stock

CCF’s detachable Glock stock is built primarily of 7075 aluminum, which is more appropriate for this application than the more commonly seen 6061 aluminum. It’s also more expensive than 6061. The Glock stock is finished in a flat black anodizing.

A tang on the stock slips into the open space in the Glock’s grip behind the magazine well. The tang is secured to the front leg of the stock with a large steel hex-head cap screw. A spring-loaded button on the tang locks the stock in place with the lanyard hole in the Glock’s grip. A thumb-operated slide on top of the forward section of the folding stock locks the two halves in the open or closed position. A U-shaped bend in the rear leg of the folding stock provides clearance for an extended magazine when the stock is folded while attached to a pistol. The rear of the curved buttplate features a repeating pattern of raised steps designed to keep the butt from sliding off the shoulder during full-auto fire when used with a Glock 18.

The butt is welded to the rear leg of the stock, which has an overall length of 15.0 inches (38.1 cm) when extended and 10.3 inches (26.2 cm) with the stock folded. The stock weighs 10.1 ounces (287 grams). I’ve always had a weakness for stocked pistols, whether or not they were select fire. A shooter of average ability can significantly increase the effective range of a handgun by adding a stock. Of course, anyone living in the United States must register a pistol as a short-barreled rifle with BATF before adding a stock.

Although it’s designed specifically for the Glock 18, CCF’s folding stock will also fit the Glock 17 with no modification. Fitting the stock to a Glock 19, however, will require drawing a flat file over the flat part of the tang until it fits into the space behind the magazine well. The tang must also be shortened slightly for a Glock 19’s of early vintage. This is a fairly easy job for someone with no gunsmithing skills.

About the only criticism I can level at this robust and well-engineered stock is the shape of the buttplate, which has too strong a curve for someone of my large body build. It feels rather like the crescent buttplate on an old Winchester rifle. This doesn’t seem to be an issue with people of average stature, however.

Accessories for USP Tactical

The USP Tactical Pistol is an attempt to combine the best features of the Mark 23 and USP (Universal Self-Loading Pistol) in a smaller, lighter, and much less expensive package than the SOCOM pistol. The USP Tactical is an inch shorter, a quarter-inch thinner, and nearly three-quarters of a pound lighter than the Mark 23. It’s also about half the price. The pistol features match trigger parts and an adjustable trigger stop, which provide a much-improved trigger over both the USP and Mark 23 pistols. The new USP Tactical also incorporates high profile sights to see over a sound suppressor, extended (Mark 23 style) threaded barrel with o-ring, a loaded chamber indicator, and extended floor plates on the two magazines supplied with the pistol (Heckler & Koch, Inc., Dept. SAR, 21480 Pacific Boulevard, Sterling, VA 22170-8903; phone 703-450-1900).

The pistol comes with a number of interesting accessories including a nylon case made by Eagle Industries, an H&K cleaning kit, operator’s manual for the USP with a supplement for the USP Tactical, rear sight adjustment tool, hex wrench for the trigger stop, two spare o-rings, and a nifty black Master padlock with red H&K escutcheon which has been standard issue with all H&K weapons since April 1998. The hard-sided case also includes detachable pouches for a sound suppressor (not included), two spare magazines (one spare included) and a UTL module (Universal Tactical Light; not included). While this is a very well thought out and affordable package, the pistol does not come with a thread protector.

Capital City Firearms offers a simple, appropriate and inexpensive thread protector with a raised knurled surface at its front to facilitate installation and removal. The thread protector has 16x1mm LH threads to match the Tactical’s extended barrel. These threads are different than the Mark 23 barrel (which is threaded 16x1mm RH) so sound suppressors featuring a recoil enhancement module designed for the Mark 23 could not be installed accidentally on the smaller pistol.

CCF also sells a four-pronged flash hider for the USP45 Tactical Pistol. Both the flash hider and the aforementioned thread protector are manufactured from 4140 ordnance steel, which is finished in a black oxide. The flash hider has an overall length of 1.81 inches (46 mm) but it only extends the overall length of the pistol by 1.26 inches (32 mm). The steel flash hider has a diameter of 0.86-inch (22 mm) and a weight of 2.0 ounces (59 grams). Most importantly, it seems to reduce the weapon’s considerable muzzle flash at night by about 50 percent. This flash hider is also available with the appropriate threads for the H&K Mark 23 pistol.

The final accessory CCF offers for the USP45 Tactical—as well as for H&K’s Mark 23—is a dummy silencer based on the Model OHG sound suppressor from Knight’s Armament Company (KAC). Classified by BATF as a barrel extension, the dummy silencer can be used for display by collectors who live in states where silencer ownership is not permitted. Some dealers also use these dummies when traveling to shows. As a long-time student of sound suppressors, I must confess that I’ve always had a rather condescending attitude toward dummy silencers… until now. The CCF facsimile of the KAC silencer is a classy presentation. Machined out of a solid billet of aluminum finished in black anodizing, the dummy can even features raised knurling on the rear of the tube. The can is 7.3 inches (18.6 cm) long, has a maximum diameter of 1.36 inches (34.5 mm), and has a weight of 13.3 ounces (377 grams). It’s the only dummy silencer I’ve ever considered purchasing.

By the time you read this, Capital City Firearms should be producing silencers of Swiss design for H&K’s USP45 Tactical and Mark 23 pistols. The Bruegger & Thomet silencers will be manufactured under license in the United States by an offshoot of CCF called CCF/Swiss Inc. (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 29009, Richmond, VA 23242; phone 804-740-4926; fax 804-740-9599). Catalogs are now available for $5 which describe the full line of CCF/Swiss silencers, but initial production will focus on suppressors for .45 ACP and 9x19mm pistols. You can check out their website at: http://www.ccfa.com.

While my wife’s preferred carry gun is a customized Model 1911A1 with tuned trigger and Innovative Weaponry night sights—the daily rituals and requirements of a busy professional woman generally preclude carrying such a sizeable weapon. Since the First Rule of Gunfighting is “Bring a gun!” many women (and many men in hot climates) opt for a small- to medium-framed weapon that conceals readily. The inexpensive Makarov pistol is proving to be a particularly popular carry gun for many women, although it is too bulky to carry in a pocket holster. The Makarov does carry well, however, in a small purse or parka pocket. Furthermore, most women find that the pistol fits their hands well, which is a very important consideration. The addition of a Spetsnaz sound suppressor from Sound Technology enables my wife to fit in some target practice in the back yard without disturbing our neighbors. This is a critical issue since she rarely has the time to trek to the local shooting range. Fitting a suppressor to her carry gun at home provides her with the only practical method of squeezing in the target practice required to maintain the skill level necessary to deliver rapid double taps to the head of a Milpark at 25 yards with almost boring certainty.

The 9mm Pistolet Makarov (PM) is to pistols what the Samozaryadyna karabin Simonova (SKS-45) is to rifles: a robust and economical design that delivers competent service using a medium-powered cartridge. Nicolay Fedorovich Makarov developed the pistolet Makarov for two cartridges: (1) the 7.62x25mm, which was developed circa 1930 by adapting the 7.63x25mm Mauser cartridge in an effort to conform to the standard bullet diameter and related tolerances used in Soviet rifles; and (2) the 9x18mm Makarov, which was inspired by the German round called the 9x18mm Ultra. Boris Semin developed the 9x18mm Makarov round, which was formally introduced for the Makarov and Stechkin pistols in 1951.

The 9x18mm Makarov was designed as an intermediate ball cartridge with performance that lies between the 9x17mm (also known as the .380 ACP and the 9mm Kurz) and the 9×19 (also known as the 9mm Parabellum and the 9mm Luger). Basic characteristics of these cartridges are compared in Table 1.

Suppressing the Makarov

As Table 1 clearly shows, the 9×18 Makarov round commonly produces a transonic projectile. This makes 9x18mm variants unsuitable for use with a muzzle can, since the resulting ballistic crack (sonic boom) of a supersonic projectile will be almost as loud as an unsuppressed .22 LR pistol. The only way to ensure a subsonic projectile is to use a Makarov chambered in—or rebarreled for—the .380 ACP cartridge. Added benefits of using the .380 ACP in the United States include: (1) more readily available ammunition at the local level, and (2) a wider variety of high-performance ammunition for this cartridge.

The selection of which Makarov variant to employ with a suppressor is a very personal matter. While I prefer a carry gun with fixed sights because they are both more compact and more robust than adjustable sights, my wife prefers the IMEZ Model IJ70-17A with its adjustable target sights. This variant of the Makarov is 6.3 inches (15.9 cm) long, 4.9 inches (12.6 cm) high, 1.2 inch (3.0 cm) thick, and weighs 24.7 ounces (702 grams) with an unloaded magazine. The metal still shows a lot of tooling marks and the blued finish is blotchy as if the frame was not properly degreased before bluing. The single-action factory fresh trigger pull was a reasonably crisp if heavy 7.3 pounds (3.3 kg), while the double-action trigger pull was a very creepy 15.9 pounds (7.3 kg).

Since the original barrel needed to be replaced with an extra-length threaded barrel, my wife purchased the 9x18mm chambering because it was cheaper. She then bought a threaded 4.2 inch (10.6 cm) stainless steel, extra-length barrel from Federal Arms Corporation of America (7928 University Ave., Fridley, MN 55432; 612-780-8780). She then had Mark White of Sound Technology install the barrel, do a trigger job on the pistol, and fabricate one of his Spetsnaz suppressors for the Makarov. White’s trigger job really smoothed out the double-action trigger pull, bringing it down to just 8.0 pounds (3.6 kg). While some creep did, however, remain when shooting double action, the Makarov trigger action is certainly acceptable for a serious social gun. White also improved the single-action trigger pull to a crisp 4.8 pounds (2.2 kg). White warns do-it-yourselfers never to use a stone or file on the sear surfaces of a Makarov. He uses a buffing wheel with very mild abrasive to polish the appropriate surfaces, but he never modifies the depth or angle of the sear notch. The “simple” design of the Makarov results in a trigger-hammer-sear assembly that has a great deal of slop. The single-action function of the Makarov can never be made as crisp as a Walther PP.

While White prefers the 1/2×32 TPI aftermarket barrel for mounting a suppressor on the Makarov, my wife purchased the 1/2×28 TPI variant of the Federal Arms barrel so I could also mount standard 9mm suppressors on the barrel for testing & evaluation articles. What a gal! I am sufficiently impressed with White’s trigger job that I’m sending my other Makarovs to him for trigger work, as soon as I can afford the $45 plus shipping for each pistol.

While Federal Arms sells a tool for removing barrels, this is not a project I can recommend for the home workshop. The barrels were never designed to be swapped. Due to different manufacturing tolerances among the various Makarovs, installing a new barrel requires: (1) a great deal of finesse regarding alignment of the pin hole; (2) hand fitting of the barrel and feed ramp; (3) brute force dealing with the barrel-retaining pin; and (4) perhaps 2,000 pounds (900 kg) of pressure to insert the replacement barrel. There is a very real learning curve to this rather odious process, and one mistake will pay for having White do the work. I perform much of my own gunsmithing, but this is one job I’ll gladly hire out.

Sound Technology’s Spetsnaz suppressor features all-steel welded construction using 0.058 inch (1.47 mm) wall 4130 chrome moly steel tubing with a blued or baked-on molybdenum resin finish. Like the Makarov pistol, the Spetsnaz suppressor is sturdy and dependable. The can is 7.4 inches (18.8 cm) long and 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in diameter, and it weighs 17.8 ounces (504 grams). Its threaded mount is available in 1/2×27, 1/2×28, 1/2×32, 1/2×36 and 1/2×40 TPI. The 1/2×32 TPI is probably the best choice since it offers a good balance between resistance to unscrewing during use and strength of the threads, with 1/2×28 being the second-best choice.

White made his first suppressor for the Makarov in 1995 at the request of a long-time customer. He went through a number of baffle designs before hitting upon a very unusual asymmetric design which is the variant he called the Spetsnaz, after the name for the Soviet special forces. The internal design of the Spetsnaz suppressor uses two symmetric baffles, followed by three bold and rather unusual asymmetric baffles, topped off by another symmetric baffle in the front of the can. White begins by welding the rear end cap to the suppressor tube, whereupon he puts the can in a lathe to bore and thread the rear end cap. He then compresses the baffles and spacers, and then welds the front end cap in place. The suppressor is returned to the lathe for boring the front end cap. This procedure provides optimum alignment of the can’s bullet passages with the bore of the pistol.

The Spetsnaz suppressor from Sound Technology occludes the sights on the Makarov, but my wife gets good sight alignment by placing a dab of white nail polish on the front sight and shooting with both eyes open, so the suppressed system works something like an occluded gunsight. The nail polish has proved to be remarkably durable for this application. The only liability with this approach is that the shooter tends to hit a bit high with a light-colored front sight when the suppressor is not mounted, and target acquisition with the suppressor mounted is a bit slow since there is no white outline on the rear sight analogous to the rear sight on a Glock. So when the nail polish wears off, we’re going to try leaving the sights black and applying a large dab of white nail polish to the rear endcap of the suppressor so we can still get positive sight alignment. We hope that will solve both problems for us. Mark White, however, prefers a colored front sight over coloring the rear end cap of the suppressor.

The robust design of the Makarov is well suited for those who would like to maximize the terminal ballistics of the .380 ACP round, using the wealth of high-performance bullets in the marketplace. Since the .380 ACP produces pressures in the 10,000 to 15,000 psi range, while the 9x18mm Makarov round generates up to 22,000 psi, the advanced handloader can develop some interesting subsonic loads using 100 and 115 grain (6.5-7.5 gram) 9mm hollow points. While 9mm bullets can be found as heavy as 170 grains (11.1 grams), the .380 ACP case features an inside taper that will cause the case to bulge if one attempts to seat a bullet heavier than 115 grains (unless one seats the bullet upside down). Developing a load with a heavy bullet should be approached with caution so as not to produce pressures beyond the tolerance of the firearm. Also bear in mind that the projectile should not exceed 1,000 fps (305 mps) for optimum sound suppression. VihtaVuori Oy powders tend to require very low charge weights, which reduces the gas volume on which the suppressor must work. The powder also burns very cleanly. Both are considerable advantages when developing a load for a suppressor. Please note that only an advanced handloader should attempt pushing the envelope as we’ve just discussed, and such development should be undertaken with extreme caution. Finally, beware of squib loads that can leave a bullet in the bore. If you don’t catch this if and when it happens, the next round may burst the barrel with some rather embarrassing consequences. A corollary to this admonition is: do not develop a load that produces projectile velocities less than 600 fps (183 mps).

Performance

The Makarov is not a target pistol, but this Model IJ70-17A with White’s trigger job and the new Federal Arms barrel delivers 1.5 inch (3.8 cm) five-shot groups at 25 yards (23 meters) using CCI Blazer ammunition with the Spetsnaz sound suppressor from Sound Technology mounted on the pistol. That’s substantially better than the accuracy recently delivered by an unmodified 9x19mm Ruger P89 pistol, which printed five-round groups that all exceeded 4.0 inches (10.2 cm) at 25 yards. While shot placement is always critical when shooting live targets, practical accuracy is a particularly important performance criterion when employing a pistol with marginal terminal ballistics like the 9x17mm and 9x18mm cartridges. The Makarov as modified by Mark White provides excellent practical accuracy, enabling the shooter to place a CNS (Central Nervous System) shot with considerable confidence at realistic engagement distances. I should note, however, that when firing the Makarov with the suppressor attached, bullet impact will be predictably low and a bit left for a right-handed shooter since the weight of the can reduces muzzle rise.

Sound signatures were measured using a Bruel and Kjaer Type 2209 Impulse Precision Sound Pressure Meter (set on A weighting and peak hold) with a B&K Type 4136 1/4-inch condenser microphone, placed 1.00 meter away from the front of the suppressor or muzzle according to U.S. Army testing procedures specified in MIL-STD-1474C.

The ambient temperature during the testing was 53 øF (12 øC). Velocities were measured in feet per second using a P.A.C.T. MKIV timer/chronograph with MKV skyscreens set 24.0 inches apart and the start screen 8.0 feet from the muzzle (P.A.C.T., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 531525, Grand Prairie, TX 75053, 214-641-0049). At least 10 rounds were fired to obtain an average sound signature or muzzle velocity.

Using CCI Blazer ammunition, the unsuppressed Makarov had a sound signature of 159 decibels. Projectile velocity was 981 fps (299 mps). When fitted with the Sound Technology Spetsnaz suppressor, the sound signature dropped to 129 dB, for a net sound reduction of 30 dB. Relatively few pistol cans of centerfire caliber produce a 30 dB sound reduction without the use of wipes or messy coolants. The Spetsnaz does; the tradeoff is that this is a moderately large and heavy can. But it’s still a practical size as shown by the fact that my wife can obtain 1.5 inch groups at 25 yards when shooting with the suppressor mounted on her Makarov. And neither she nor I has ever disturbed the neighbors when shooting this system in the back yard. What more could you want? Reliability. Makarov tolerances are such that the pistol performs reliably whether devoid of lubrication or in serious need of cleaning. We’ve yet to have a stoppage or malfunction of any kind. That’s more than I can say for my first $2,000 custom Model 1911 .45 ACP carry gun. The IMEZ Model IJ70-17A Makarov pistol with Spetsnaz suppressor from Sound Technology is a dandy setup at an affordable price.

Izhevsky Mekhanichesky Zavod
8 Promyshlennaya str.
Izhevsk 426063
Republic of Udmurtia
Russia
phone +7-3412-7-28-55
fax +7-3412-76-58-90

Sound Technology
P.O. Box 391
Pelham, AL 35124
USA
phone and fax 205-664-5860

In the previous issue, we discussed the silenced P9S pistol developed for the U.S. Navy which featured an innovative stainless steel silencer developed at Qual-A-Tec and manufactured by Heckler & Koch GmbH. The Small Suppressor was designed to work with the MP5-N and MP5K-N submachine guns as well as the P9S pistol. The P9S pistol and Small Suppressor system became standard issue in the 1986, replacing the MK 3 suppressor and MK 3 MOD 0 pistol. The previous discussion detailed the design and manufacturing of the Small Suppressor and alluded to the Large Suppressor, which was developed when the Navy discovered that the otherwise outstanding aluminum silencer built in Germany for the MP5SD integrally silenced submachine gun was subject to severe saltwater corrosion. In this issue, we’ll wrap up the discussion of H&K’s Small Suppressor and conclude with a look at the Large Suppressor designed for the MP5SD-N integrally silenced submachine gun.

Both the Small Suppressors and Large Suppressors of Qual-A-Tec design were manufactured by H&K in house at Chantilly, Virginia, and subsequently at Sterling, VA. It is interesting that a German technician would always supervise a production run of suppressors to ensure quality control. The welding required for this design was particularly demanding, and the in-house reject rate (before reworking the bullet passage by line-boring a second time) was perhaps 20 percent until H&K built a special TIG (Tungsten Inert Gas) welder for fabricating the Qual-A-Tec designs. The reject rate immediately dropped to 1-3 percent (before reworking the bullet passage by line boring a second time).

While not required by the end-user, H&K always test fired each and every Small Suppressor on an MP5 with optical sight to ensure that the can delivered outstanding accuracy at 100 meters. One man would shoot one gun while another exchanged suppressors on a second gun, enabling them to test a lot of cans throughout the course of a night at the in-house range. Using almost any ammunition of the day, the MP5 with Small Suppressor would deliver 6-8 inch (15-20 cm) five-shot groups when fired in semiautomatic mode. Using Winchester 115-grain JHP ammunition, the Small Suppressor on an MP5 usually delivered 2-4 inch (5-10 cm) five-round group. A given gun would be more accurate with a suppressor than without, presumably because the weight of the suppressor dampened barrel harmonics. If the suppressor failed the accuracy test, redressing the bullet passage through the suppressor to remove any burrs usually corrected any accuracy problems. If that failed, it was destroyed. H&K delivered somewhere between 1,000 and 1,500 Small Suppressors to the U.S. Navy between 1986 and 1989.

The Small Suppressor we examined with a P9S pistol featuring standard fixed sights has the following markings: CAL. 9MM HK INC CHANTILLY VA SN 91 1156-1.

This particular weapon and suppressor were used for the testing of terminal ballistics during the Navy’s quest for an improved 9x19mm round for CT (counter-terrorist) missions. The mid- to late 1980s were an important time in the history of handgun ammunition. U.S. ammunition manufacturers competed in the development of improved handgun projectiles for law-enforcement applications. Simultaneously, U.S. military units with responsibility for in extremis missions (such as hostage rescue) sought projectiles that increased the likelihood of incapacitating the target, while reducing over-penetration which could place both hostages and rescue personnel at risk. Thus, the Small Suppressor was at the right place at the right time to provide the Navy with both a superior tactical tool as well as a handy research tool for the development of new ammunition.

H&K’s Large Suppressor

H&K began the development of an integrally suppressed version of the MP5 in the late 1960s. Herr Kästner developed this first variant of the MP5SD, which featured aggressive slot-shaped barrel ports designed to rapidly vent combustion gases into metal mesh, which was combined with a series of five baffles in front of the barrel. But the mesh fouled so quickly that it had to be replaced every 70 rounds and the slots significantly reduced barrel strength, so H&K began the quest for a more durable suppressor soon after this first variant of the MP5SD was produced in 1968.

Working from 1970 to June 1972, Walter Wolf subsequently developed a silencer featuring a coaxial design that employed aluminum square tubing for the inner coaxial structure and round aluminum tubing for the outer casing. The square tubing begins life as an aluminum extrusion, which is then machined so opposing sections on all four sides of the tubing, can be bent inward and welded to form four pairs of baffles. The machined cuts are designed so that one cut section is shorter than the section facing it, forming V-shaped baffles that point at the chamber. Since the facing legs of the V have different lengths, the bent sections of extruded tubing form asymmetrical surfaces for increasing the turbulence of combustion gases within the suppressor. Machined adapters are then welded in place at each end of the square module to center the module inside the outer tube. The net result is a coaxial design, with the inner coaxial chamber being square in cross section rather than circular. One adapter nestles in a channel cut in the dome’s front end cap, while the other is threaded to mate with the separate tube that surrounds the ported barrel. Once the adapters are welded in place, the square module assembly is bored for a bullet passage. The domed front end cap and rear end cap of the Wolf silencer are glued into place, so the suppressor must be submerged in a solvent such as Varsol for several days for periodic cleaning. Simply drain and blow out with compressed air.

The system is ingenious, well suited for mass production, and quiet. The patented Wolf silencer is 11.88 inches (30.2 cm) long and 1.58 inches (4.0 cm) in diameter. The aluminum silencer weighs 1.0 pounds (0.45 kg). When fitted with the aluminum silencer and retractable stock extended, the MP5SD3 is 30.4 inches (77.2 cm) long and it weighs 7.5 pounds (3.4 kg) empty and 8.7 pounds (3.9 kg) with a loaded 30-round magazine.

The Navy discovered that the aluminum components of the MP5SD suppressor were subject to saltwater corrosion. This stimulated Qual-A-Tec to develop a suppressor for the MP5SD that was fabricated entirely out of stainless steel. While heavier than the original factory silencer, Q’s stainless suppressor not only mitigated saltwater corrosion problems, it was also quieter than the Wolf design. Qual-A-Tec produced only a small number of these replacement suppressors before licensing the technology to Heckler & Koch. This design became the so-called Large Suppressor which H&K subsequently delivered to the Navy. Like its smaller sibling, the Large Suppressor also used Q’s Type 3 baffle.

The Large Suppressor is 12.40 inches (31.5 cm) long and 1.63 inches (4.14 cm) in diameter. The stainless steel silencer weighs 2.24 pounds (1.02 kg). Because the Large Suppressor had a greater diameter than the German can (due to using tubing of Imperial rather than metric measurements), H&K had to mill down the cocking lever supports on the MP5SD-N to provide clearance for the stainless suppressor when locking the cocking lever back in the detent.

The baffle stack of the Large Suppressor is about as long as the Small Suppressor, but the stainless steel replacement can for the MP5SD only incorporates six Type 3 baffles. This silencer features a domed front-end cap and a long primary expansion chamber. Designed to envelop the MP5SD’s ported barrel, the primary expansion chamber adds considerable length to the rear of the suppressor. This rear portion of the silencer is 4.75 inches (12.1 cm) long. The primary expansion chamber vents into a cylindrical coaxial expansion chamber via three rows of six large (0.50 inch, 1.3 cm) holes. A muzzle support separates the rear-most chambers from a secondary expansion chamber formed by a cylindrical spacer that fits tightly against the outer suppressor tube. Ports in the muzzle support enable gases from the chambers surrounding the barrel to continue forward through the suppressor, which prevents the buildup of back pressure from limiting the effectiveness of the primary expansion chamber and the coaxial chamber surrounding it. A cylindrical spacer separates the rearmost baffle from the muzzle support. Otherwise the design and function of the conical spacers is comparable to the Small Suppressor. The baffles have a larger diameter and, therefore, larger coaxial and annular expansion chambers to enhance the performance of the suppressor.

The Type 3 baffle used in the Large Suppressor is 1.19 inches (30.3 mm) long and has a diameter of 1.49 inches (37.7 mm). The cut-off chord is 0.78 inches (19.9 mm) long and has a maximum depth of 0.17-inch (4.4 mm) from the circumference of the rear baffle face. The rear face of the baffle has a diameter of 1.40 inches (35.6 mm) and the lip on the front of the conical spacer is 0.20 inch high with a wall thickness of 0.037-inch (0.94 mm). The LOA of the conical spacer and lip is 0.90 inch (22.9 mm). The bullet passage has a diameter of 0.39 inches (9.8 mm). The annular expansion chamber has a depth of 0.35 inch (8.9 mm) as measured from the diameter of the baffle’s front face, and the annular chamber has a length of 0.15 inch (3.8 mm). The three outlets venting from the annular expansion chamber into the slanted sidewall bullet passage have a diameter of 1/8-inch (3.2 mm). The slots in the rear face of the baffle are 1.0-inch (25.4-mm) long and 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) in width. An individual stainless steel baffle made for the Large Suppressor weighs 1.7 ounces (49 grams).

When fitted with the stainless steel Large Suppressor and folding stock extended, the MP5SD-N is 31.0 inches (78.7 cm) long, and it weighs 8.7 pounds (4.0 kg) empty and 9.9 pounds (4.5 kg) with a loaded 30-round magazine. Heckler & Koch made perhaps 750 Large Suppressors in Virginia, most of which went to the Navy between 1986 and 1989.

An interesting footnote to this story is that H&K still uses the extruded aluminum, square tubing silencer developed by Walter Wolf in the early 1970s as the standard issue sound suppressor on the MP5SD. A recently introduced, very simple modification to that design provides an impressive 3-decibel gain in sound reduction.

Conclusions

While the suppressed H&K P9S pistol was outstanding technology, the Teams seemed to prefer using a silenced submachine gun over a silenced 9mm pistol in the decade following the introduction of the Small Suppressor. Therefore, this silencer was normally fielded on an MP5-N or MP5K-N submachine gun. Despite the fact that the Navy adopted the .45 caliber Mark 23 Mod. 0 pistol from Heckler and Koch and the Model OHG suppressor from Knight’s Armament in 1996, the suppressed P9S pistol can still be found in the arms rooms of the Teams and are still available for missions. It is safe to say that the H&K P9S pistol with H&K’s Small Suppressor remains one of the best silenced 9x19mm pistols ever fielded by a military unit.

The stainless steel Large Suppressor designed for the MP5SD-N was about 19 ounces (0.55 kg) heavier than the aluminum factory silencer used in the MP5SD, but it provided the corrosion resistance necessary for amphibious operations in the marine environment. The Large Suppressor also provided superior sound reduction to the excellent German-made aluminum suppressor. While both the Large and Small Suppressors designed by Qual-A-Tec are now out of production, they represented a major improvement in the evolution of silencer technology when Heckler & Koch began producing them in 1986. Robust, accurate and quiet—these stainless steel sound suppressors fundamentally changed the subsequent direction of silencer design around the world. Heckler & Koch and Qual-A-Tec wrote a very important chapter of silencer history with their collaboration on the Large and Small Suppressors, and these outstanding sound suppressors remain in service to this day.

Author’s note: I would like to thank Frank W. James, Doug Olson, N.R. Parker, Hays Parks, and Jim Schatz for their considerable help with my research into this story.

H&K’s Navy Silencers: Part I

As the U.S. Navy gained experience with the Mark 3 sound suppressor on the 9x19mm Mark 3 Mod 0 pistol after the system’s introduction to the SEAL Teams in 1967, it became obvious that the so-called Hush Puppy suppressor and modified Smith & Wesson Model 39 pistol had some notable shortcomings. Qual-A-Tec in Oceanside, California, developed a suitable replacement in the 1980s. By this time, the Navy had a requirement for a suppressed pistol that could be fired immediately upon exiting the water or even underwater. The new suppressed weapon from Q (as industry insiders refer to Qual-A-Tec), which employed the Heckler & Koch P9S pistol with extra-length threaded barrel, was the only system that could meet this requirement. After the Navy procured a limited number of the silenced pistols from Q (which was an R&D firm with extensive prototyping but limited production capabilities) and the Navy decided to buy this system in quantity, Qual-A-Tec licensed Heckler & Koch GmbH to manufacture the suppressor.

The Teams adopted the H&K P9S pistol with novel suppressor designed at Q but manufactured under license by H&K in Virginia. Simultaneously, the Navy also discovered that the otherwise outstanding aluminum silencer built in Germany for the MP5SD integrally silenced submachine gun was subject to severe saltwater corrosion. So Qual-A-Tec developed a stainless steel suppressor for the MP5SD-N, which H&K also built under license. This is the story of the Navy’s silenced P9S pistol and the special silencer developed for the Navy variant of the MP5SD submachine gun.

The story really begins with the Navy’s experience with the MK 3 suppressor and MK 3 MOD 0 pistol, which were manufactured by Smith & Wesson from 1967 through the early 1970s. The suppressor was based closely upon contemporary German silencers designed by Siegfried Huebner of Carl Walther Waffenfabrik in Ulm-Donau.

The MK 3 suppressor and MK 3 MOD 0 pistol were commonly used in Vietnam by SEALs for quietly eliminating noisy village dogs, hence the weapon quickly became known as the Hush Puppy. The point man on a Navy patrol might also carry the Hush Puppy so he could quietly eliminate a hostile contact. Some of these silenced pistols may have seen anti-personnel service with Project Phoenix.

While the Mark 3 suppressor was remarkably small and light for a centerfire pistol suppressor, it achieved these qualities with the use of elastomer wipes. The act of the bullet pushing through the wipes—which closed behind the bullet and trapped combustion gases normally perceived as a gunshot—adversely affected accuracy and limited the effective range of the suppressed pistol. This was an important consideration because the 158 grain (10.3 gram) FMJ round issued with the pistol would not reliably put down a hostile human or noisy dog with a center of mass shot. A CNS (Central Nervous System; i.e., brain) shot was necessary to instantly incapacitate a target. This is a tough shot to make with the limited accuracy delivered by the Mark 3 suppressor. Furthermore, this round would not always reliably cycle the suppressed Smith & Wesson pistol. Therefore, many operators employed the pistol with its slide lock engaged, the lever locking into notches cut on the sides of the slide. While using the slide lock made the Hush Puppy much quieter and avoided jamming the weapon with a partially extracted fired case, this practice had several distinct disadvantages. It eliminated the ability for a quick follow-up shot despite the potential usefulness of a follow-up shot when using FMJ pistol ammunition. The repeated recoil of a notched slide against a slide lock quickly cracked the slides at the notches, requiring a replacement slide after as few as 150 rounds.

Despite these liabilities, the Hush Puppy remained popular among the SEALs operating in Vietnam. But missions and technology moved on. The rise of global terrorism expanded the mission of some elite military units into the realms of counter-terrorism and hostage rescue. Since the Mark 3 suppressor used wipes, it could not be employed with the new high-performance hollow point rounds being developed in the mid-1980s. Clearly, a more robust pistol and a wipeless suppressor were needed to provide improved accuracy for the maturing tactical doctrine related to close quarter battle and hostage rescue. And a system was also needed that could use subsonic hollow point ammunition in order to achieve improved terminal ballistics for in extremis missions. Finally, the suppressed pistol had to cycle more reliably than the Hush Puppy with its original 158 grain ammunition. The innovative P9S pistol developed by Heckler and Koch proved to be a worthy successor to the MK 3 MOD 0 pistol.

The P9S Pistol

Introduced by Heckler and Koch GmbH in 1968 as an improved variant of the P9 pistol, the P9S might be viewed as a “delayed blowback” pistol, although H&K doesn’t like this term. A roller locking mechanism derived from H&K’s G3 rifle was used to provide a brief delay upon firing, until the chamber pressure dropped to a safe level. The P9S pistol was also noteworthy in its day for the weapon’s polymer frame, fixed barrel, double/single-action trigger, and extensive use of stampings in its fabrication.

Operation of the P9S is relatively novel for a pistol. Two rollers on a two-part breech block engage recesses in the barrel extension when the slide is closed. The heavy rear portion of the breech block pushes against the light forward portion, forcing the rollers outward. Upon firing, expanding combustion gases push the base of the fired case rearward against the light forward portion of the breech block. The slide’s inertia slows inward movement of the rollers, which must disengage from the recesses in the barrel extension before the breech block can begin to move rearward and begin the extraction and ejection sequence.

When a round is chambered, the extractor stands out and serves as an indicator. When the hammer is cocked, a pin protrudes from the rear of the slide. Both indicators can be seen easily in daylight or verified by touch in the dark. The internal cocked hammer can be released be depressing the decocking lever on the left side of the grip behind the trigger. Polygonal rifling provides a tighter gas seal between the projectile and bore (which produces slightly higher projectile velocity than conventional rifling), reduced bullet deformation (which should enhance accuracy at least in theory), less barrel fouling, and longer barrel life.

The standard commercial 9x19mm variant of the P9S pistol is 7.6 inches (19.2 cm) long, has a barrel length of 4.0 inches (10.2 cm), weighs 1.9 pounds (880 grams) empty, and features a nine-round single column magazine. A .45 ACP variant was made for commercial sales chiefly in the United States, but the Navy did not use this variant. While Heckler & Koch GmbH assembled the last P9S in 1989, Hellenic Arms Industry (EBO) SA of Athens, Greece subsequently manufactured the weapon under license, as recently as 1996. The Greek variant is called the EP9S pistol.

The Navy variant of the P9S with extra-length barrel was 8.2 inches (20.8 cm) long without the suppressor and 15.4 inches (39.1 cm) with the suppressor fitted. With the suppressor, the unloaded pistol weighed 3.2 pounds (1.7 kg). A loaded magazine would add 0.45 pounds (200 grams). All of the H&K P9S pistols delivered to the U.S. Navy included two standard barrels and one extra-length barrel threaded 1/2×32 TPI for mounting a suppressor. This latter barrel was issued with a thread protector. The Navy pistols also featured the target sights used on the Target and Competition Models since these sights were higher than normal and would extend above the suppressor. Fitting the suppressor to a P9S pistol with standard sights required a different sighting strategy. Since the suppressor was a grit-blasted matte stainless finish and the pistol sights were black (albeit with colored inserts), there was generally enough contrast to align the front and rear sights against the pale suppressor. Then with both eyes open, the operator could superimpose that sight picture over the target, rather like using an occluded gunsight. This strategy is neither as fast nor as accurate as using sights that see over a suppressor, which is why the Navy pistols featured the higher sights.

The fixed barrel design of the P9S is ideally suited for mounting a suppressor, since the silencer’s length and weight will not adversely affect the reliability of the weapon’s cycling. The typical semiautomatic pistol of centerfire caliber is hard to silence because the weight of the suppressor retards the rearward movement of the barrel, which provides energy to cycle the slide. Thus, the Smith & Wesson Model 39, its incarnation as MK 3 MOD 0 pistol, the Beretta 92F, or any other pistol that depends on the rearward movement of its barrel is more likely to malfunction with a suppressor than the H&K P9S, which does not require barrel movement.

The P9S is also well suited for amphibious operations since it features both a fixed barrel and a single-column magazine. A swimmer, for example, can lock out of a submarine with the Model P9S suppressor mounted and the single-column magazine loaded in the gun. The swimmer then rotates the gun until all the air bubbles disappear, and then chambers a round. The operator could then shoot the gun underwater or poke the suppressor out of the water if, for example, he needed to take a target off a boat, platform or beach. The single-column magazine of the P9S is crucial when the operator must traverse the surf zone off a beach, where suspended sand in the water works its way into the pistol. The P9S will cycle reliably in semiautomatic after being immersed in surf; the Beretta M9 (92F) will not.

As far as I know, the P9S is the only 9mm pistol suitable for amphibious operations. The Navy, for example, tested the H&K P7 pistol before selecting the P9S. The P7 did not work well when carried though the surf and sand zone, since sand that worked its way into the mechanism would prevent the cocking lever from moving freely. The double-column, single-position feed magazines of pistols such as the Beretta, SIG and Glock jam, so the swimmer only gets to use the round that was manually racked into the chamber. A second magazine may be inserted, but it will also cease to function after the first round is manually racked into the chamber. While the H&K P9S magazine design provides much of its reliability in this environment, the gun itself is also toleranced very nicely for this application.

The U.S. Navy SEALs usually issued the H&K P9S pistol with the H&K “Stainless Steel Suppressor, Small, 9mm”, which was referred to by H&K personnel simply as the Small Suppressor to distinguish it from the “Stainless Steel Suppressor, Large, 9mm” which Qual-A-Tec designed and H&K manufactured for the MP5SD-N. The Small Suppressor was designed to work with the MP5-N and MP5K-N submachine guns as well as the P9S pistol. The P9S pistol and Small Suppressor system became standard issue in the 1986, replacing the MK 3 suppressor and MK 3 MOD 0 pistol. The older suppressed pistols were retained, however, in reserve. Production of the Small Suppressor and Large Suppressor continued until 1992, when H&K began to develop a relationship with the Knight’s Armament Company for suppressor technology.

H&K’s Small Suppressor

Designed by Qual-A-Tec but manufactured by H&K, the Small Suppressor was based on the patented designs of Charles A. “Mickey” Finn (U.S. patent 4588043). Finn also holds patents on these designs in Europe, Australia, and South Africa. Manufactured entirely of stainless steel, the Small Suppressor measures 7.75 inches (19.7 cm) long and 1.38 inches (3.5 cm) in diameter. The suppressor weighs 19.7 ounces (1.23 pounds; 558 grams).

While originally designed for the P9S pistol, the unusually robust and effective Small Suppressor proved to be an effective submachine gun suppressor as well. Therefore, the Navy did not purchase the Small Suppressor specifically for the P9S pistol. A given Navy purchase order might specify, for example: 1,000 MP5-N, 1,000 MP5K-N and 1,000 MP5SD-N submachine guns, plus 800 P9S Navy pistols and a quantity of Small Suppressors. The Navy did not purchase suppressed pistols per se, but rather would issue suppressors with one of the aforementioned H&K weapons when needed. The versatility of the Small Suppressor meant that the Navy needed fewer cans in inventory to meet their requirements.

The P9S suppressor incorporates baffles of the slanted sidewall type, which are welded together in a sealed unit. The slanted sidewall is a diagonal slot of similar radius to the bullet passage, centered on the bullet passage, that creates a diagonal channel at a 45 degree angle to the bore going from one side of the rear surface to the opposing side on the front of the baffle. Each slanted sidewall baffle creates a gas jet to push against the stream of combustion gases following the bullet. The gas jet dumps significantly more energy inside the suppressor than the same number of similarly spaced conventional baffles.

An unusual feature found on the 5.56mm prototypes of this basic design is that the slanted sidewall is used in the front end cap of the silencer as well as in its baffles. While one might think that a slanted sidewall would be counterproductive on the front end cap, this feature does actually enhance the sound reduction delivered by this can. The slanted sidewall was not used in the front end cap of either 9mm suppressor, however.

Finn’s patent includes three very different slanted sidewall baffles. Finn’s Type 3 baffle (called the “Third Embodiment” in the patent) is used in the Small Suppressor. Each of the six rearmost baffles in the Small Suppressor features an integral conical spacer in front of it with the apex pointed rearward. The conical spacer features a mouse-hole in its apex adjacent to the forward edge of the slanted sidewall, which directs its gas jet into the coaxial expansion chamber, formed by the spacer. The patent shows a second hole at the front (wide part) of the conical spacer, which directs gases back into the gas stream following the bullet. This hole at the front (wide part) of the cone has two functions: (1) the vent allows gases directed into the outer coaxial chamber surrounding the conical spacer to continue forward through the suppressor, and (2) the release of gas pressure from the front of the coaxial chamber prevents the buildup of back pressure that would neutralize the effectiveness of the coaxial chamber by preventing more gas from entering the rear of the coaxial chamber. Deflecting the gases away from the central axis of the suppressor slows the expansion process within the suppressor and provides additional surface area for cooling the gases. This reduces the amount of energy that would be perceived as noise. The seventh (front-most) baffle does not have a conical spacer.

The production variant of the Type 3 baffle incorporated into the H&K Small Suppressor eliminates the hole at the front (wide) part of the conical spacer. The cut-off chord in the rear face of the baffle (discussed later in this manuscript) indirectly serves the same function, so this hole could be eliminated in the final design.

A portion of the gases passing through the slanted sidewall in the center of the baffle is directed outward along the inner surface of conical spacer. Designing the conical spacer so its radius is less than the radius of the slanted sidewall facilitates this process. Gases flow from the inner surface of the spacer’s apex, forward at an acute angle from the central axis of the can, until striking the rear face of the next baffle. The rear face of the baffle generates more turbulence, robbing the gases of some energy. Two long slots milled perpendicular to the cut-off chord (one slot on either side of the bullet passage) vent combustion gases from the central core of the silencer through the rear baffle face into the annular expansion chamber milled into the outer edge of the baffle. These slots are 0.75 inch (19.1 mm long) and 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) wide.

The rear face of the baffle is machined to a slightly smaller diameter than the front face, enabling the front lip of the conical spacer to slip outside the rear two-thirds of the next baffle, abutting against the front rim of that baffle and forming the outer wall of the annular expansion chamber cut into the edge of the baffle. Gas from the outer coaxial expansion chamber formed by the conical spacer vents into the annular expansion chamber via a cut-off chord milled into the rear face of the baffle. Gas from the cut-off chord runs into gas from the two slots, creating turbulence that robs the gases of energy that would be perceived as sound. These commingled gases from the silencer core and the outer coaxial expansion chamber vent from the annular chamber through three outlets into the slanted sidewall bullet passage. These outlets have a diameter of 1/8 inch (3.2 mm) and are created by drilling radially inward from the annular chamber toward the geometric center of the baffle. All three outlets vent gases into the bullet passage at right angles to the gas stream following the bullet. The central of the three outlets is oriented 180 degrees from the cut-off chord that vents gases into the annular chamber. These three outlets add energy to the gas jet created by the slanted sidewall to push across the gas stream following the bullet. The diagonal gas jet is directed into the mouse-hole at the apex of the conical spacer (which is integrally machined in front of the baffle).

During fabrication of the unit, six baffles with integral conical spacers are welded into a single unit with each mouse-hole aligned with every other mouse-hole. A single (i.e., seventh) Type 3 baffle minus its integral conical spacer is added to the front of the baffle stack, which is welded to a cylindrical spacer that forms a coaxial chamber around the primary expansion chamber at the rear of the suppressor. Here the cut-off chord communicating between the annular groove and the slanted sidewall works in inverse fashion to the rest of the baffle stack. Gas vents from the bore, into the annular chamber, and then out the cut-off chord milled in the rear face of the baffle into the coaxial chamber surrounding the primary expansion chamber to the rear of this first baffle. A very short cylindrical lip on the front end cap fits tightly against the outer suppressor tube and holds the front-most (seventh) baffle in place.

The entire baffle stack is welded together and then inserted into the outer tube as a unit. Then the end caps are welded to the suppressor tube. Finally, the suppressor is line-bored to assure a perfectly aligned bullet passage.

In the next issue, we’ll wrap up the discussion of H&K’s Small Suppressor and conclude with a look at the Large Suppressor designed for the MP5SD-N integrally silenced submachine gun.

Problem Solving With Low Signature Weapons, Part III

In previous issues of SAR, the first and second installments of this article examined how to use suppressed weapons for solving a wide array of tactical and public-relations problems. The preceding discussion focused on how to: (1) hide the fact that a shot has been fired; (2) hide the location of the shooter; (3) reduce public-relations and media-relations problems. This article will conclude the discussion by exploring the use of low-signature weapons to (1) enhance command and control; (2) preserve operator hearing, especially in confined spaces; (3) reduce the likelihood of detonation when operating in a potentially explosive atmosphere; (4) improve the quality and safety of live-fire training; (5) reduce muzzle blast and recoil; (6) safeguard human night vision and electronic night vision devices; (7) reduce the risk of so-called “friendly fire” accidents; (8) increase operational security, and (9) improve both practical accuracy and the speed of follow-up shots.

Reducing Muzzle Blast and Recoil

Dr. Rauno Pääkkönen of the Tampere Regional Institute of Occupational Health and Illka Kyttälä of the Ministry of Labor in Finland have conducted the most interesting research to date on the effects of rifle-caliber muzzle brakes and sound suppressors on such important performance criteria as muzzle blast, recoil, and accuracy.

For this particular study, Pääkkönen and Kyttälä used 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester) hunting rifles that were threaded for muzzle brakes and sound suppressors. Two suppressors and twelve muzzle brakes were fired from bolt-action rifles with Lapua supersonic and subsonic ammunition, measuring sound signatures both at the shooter’s left ear and 10.9 yards (10 m) to the right of the shooter at a height of 63 inches (1.6 m). They measured recoil using a ballistic pendulum, which held the firearm at the end of a 39.37 inch (1.00 m) arm to which a weight was added to reduce the angle of rotation during recoil. Accuracy tests were conducted at the Lapua Oy range using a machine rest that incorporated a spring mechanism to absorb recoil. Here’s what they learned.

Muzzle brakes significantly increased the sound pressure level at the shooter’s ear, from an average peak sound pressure level (SPL) of 159 db without the muzzle brake to an average of 167 dB with muzzle brake. That 8 dB difference represents a significant increase in both discomfort and health risk. The muzzle brakes were effective, however, at reducing recoil momentum from 10.9 to 6.2 kg m/s, which represents a 43 percent reduction. Converting the SPLs to sound exposure levels (which include a time factoring to quantify health risk), then the data display a linear correlation between the sound exposure level and recoil momentum. In other words, those muzzle brakes most effective at reducing recoil also produced the greatest risk to the shooter’s hearing.

When the rifles were fitted with a BR-Tuote reflex sound suppressor, which only extends a few centimeters beyond the muzzle of the rifle, the ultra-compact but relatively loud muzzle can produced a modest net sound reduction of 18 dB at the shooter’s ear. The reflex suppressor did, however, reduce the recoil energy from 23 to 15 Joules, which represents a reduction of 35 percent. The more traditionally designed Vaimeco muzzle can extends well beyond the muzzle, and provides an impressive 35 dB sound reduction. Using Lapua subsonic ammunition, the Vaimeco suppressor delivers an amazing 41 dB reduction at the shooter’s ear.

When Pääkkönen and Kyttälä looked at how these suppressors affected accuracy, they found no difference in group size with or without either suppressor. The average point of impact did, however, move downward 60-70 mm (2.4-2.8 inches) at 100 meters (109 yards). Simply adjusting a rifle’s sights corrected for this phenomenon. My own experience suggests that many rifles will become more accurate with properly designed and installed sound suppressor since the weight of the device dampens barrel harmonics. Rifles with short, fat and stiff barrels may exhibit little improvement in group size when a suppressor is installed. But I’ve seen group size shrink from 1.5 MOA to less than 0.5 MOA with the addition of certain suppressors to some tactical rifles.

This research is relevant to tactical users, since recoil reduction is particularly desirable in weapons using a cartridge larger than the 7.62x51mm round. Using a suppressor with .300 Winchester Magnum rifles, for example, permits extended training without shooter fatigue. The suppressor also reduces the risk of both short-term and long-term hearing loss by the sniper, spotter, and training cadre.

Using a suppressor to mitigate recoil with the increasingly popular .50 BMG sniper rifles is especially valuable in both the training and tactical environments. Not only is fatigue a more serious problem with this big boomer, the recoil impulse of unsilenced .50 caliber rifles has separated more than one shoulder, thus rendering the shooters hors de combat for a period of months. Mounting a suppressor (such as the ones manufactured by SIOPTS, AWC Systems Technology, and SCRC) onto a .50 caliber rifle reduces the recoil impulse and thus reduces the risk of shoulder injury, while reducing overpressure that pounds the face and eardrums of the shooter. Of course, the other benefits of suppressor use are even more valuable with a .50 caliber BMG rifle, especially the reduction of muzzle flash and environmental disturbances that can disclose the position of the shooter.

There are two main liabilities of .50 caliber suppressors: they tend to be large and heavy. Since a .50 caliber sniper rifle is essentially viewed as a crew-served weapon because of its size and weight, the additional burden of a massive suppressor is mitigated somewhat. Size and weight are primarily relevant for military users of the .50 caliber rifles since the impedimenta carried by the modern soldier is already burdensome, to say the least. Law-enforcement deployment generally involves limited movement on foot and much shorter stalks than common to military operations, so the size and weight factors are somewhat more flexible. Nevertheless, the additional bulk added by a .50 caliber suppressor must be considered.

Enhancing Command and Control

Using suppressed weapons during an unconventional operation enhances command and control for several reasons.

Suppressors facilitate verbal communications both directly (by lowering weapon noise) and indirectly (by eliminating short-term hearing loss called temporary threshold shift experienced by the operator and nearby personnel). Gunshot-induced TTS can last for a day or more. Furthermore, severe TTS is a particular problem if unsuppressed weapons are used in a confined space such as a building, ship or aircraft. Temporary threshold shift not only impedes communication among the good guys, it also impedes the ability of the good guys to hear the movement and verbal communications of the bad guys. Furthermore, temporary hearing loss becomes permanent with repeated exposure, which will adversely affect an officer’s survivability, not to mention his or her quality of life.

The use of passive hearing protection devices (such as muffs or plugs) is incompatible with the maintenance of effective command and control. Active HPDs will permit effective command and control, but these electronic devices have their own technical liabilities and are subject to failure at inopportune moments. Suppressors are not subject to battery failure or a broken wire. Furthermore, the suppressor provides hearing protection while allowing the operator to monitoring tactical radio communications by using an earplug in one year while leaving the other ear free to monitor verbal signals from nearby team members as well as environmental sounds.

Preserving Operator Hearing

As already discussed, the use of suppressed weapons dramatically reduces the risk of both temporary threshold shift and permanent threshold shift. This is an important consideration during training as well as during actual tactical operations. It’s hard to overstate the value of using suppressors to reduce TTS and PTS.

Operating in Potentially Explosive Atmospheres

Both military and law-enforcement operations are sometimes conducted in environments with potentially explosive atmospheric conditions. Muzzle flash might cause ignition in such environments as chemical plants, oil refineries, and illegal drug labs. Using a suppressor, preferably with special low-flash ammunition, can reduce the risk of muzzle flash causing an explosion. Several approaches show promise: using a suppressor with wipes to contain the flash, and using a wet suppressor to prevent the flash.

The SCRC Model MK-26 suppressor is an example of the former. When mated to an MP5 submachine gun, this suppressor (unlike many designs) seems to eliminate ejection-port flash, which can also provide a source of atmospheric ignition. The safest route, however, is to use a manually operated, locked-breech weapon so that ejection-port flash is no longer a potential issue. Gemtech uses a combination of wipe and wet technology to quench the muzzle blast and a foam-sealed E&L hard plastic brass catcher to isolate any ejection port flash or hot powder residue from the atmosphere.

Arms Tech, Inc. manufactures a matched artificial-environment suppressor and low-flash ammunition specifically designed to minimize the risk of detonation when operating in explosive atmospheres, although each weapon must be individually tested to ensure the absence of ejection-port flash even with this system. The Russians use captive-piston ammunition, which contains the by-products of ignition within the cartridge case, in special silenced weapons that provide the safest solution to this operational requirement.

Arms Tech has also developed a captive-piston round for use in potentially explosive atmospheres. Called the 6mm Hazmat, this round and weapons for it are available for sale to government clients only in the United States. All of these technologies improve the odds for an operator who must shoot in a potentially explosive atmosphere. But no firearms technology provides an absolute guarantee that ignition will not occur upon discharge of the weapon in an explosive atmosphere.

Improved Training

As an NRA instructor, I’ve frequently used silenced .22s to help troublesome civilian students get over their fear of shooting a firearm. The technique even helps experienced shooters such as military and law-enforcement personnel improve their shooting fundamentals, since the exotic qualities of a silenced firearm increase their concentration on what they are doing, as well as the instructor’s comments. The use of a sound suppressor also dramatically reduces felt recoil and shooter fatigue. While this is a considerable factor affecting the concentration and endurance of civilian shooters, the armed professional also benefits from the reduced effects of muzzle blast and recoil. Experienced shooters can be trained for longer periods when using a suppressed arm in the more punishing calibers such as .300 Winchester Magnum. .338 Lapua Magnum, and .50 BMG.

If an individual is ever called upon to conduct a hunter safety course, another consideration relates to the health and well-being of young shooters. Small kids can find shooting muffs uncomfortable. In fact, the muffs may not effectively seal on their heads, so they may experience discomfort and even hearing loss as a result. Suppressors provide a practical alternative to hearing protectors for young shooters. Finally, using suppressors instead of hearing protectors makes it easier for the instructor to communicate with the students, which not only facilitates instruction, it also enhances the instructor’s ability to maintain safe and effective control over shooters on the firing line. This is an especially critical consideration with beginning students, who are more likely to exhibit unsafe behaviors.

Safeguard Human Night Vision and NVDs

A single muzzle flash can temporarily ruin the night vision of a sniper, and the flash of a big boomer like the .338 Lapua Magnum and .50 BMG can wash out the image from some Night Vision Devices. The recoil from a big boomer can even damage the electronic circuitry of an NVD mounted on a sniper rifle. Employing a sniper rifle with a sound suppressor solves both of those potential problems. This is particularly important with rifles of any caliber when using an NVD weapon sight with the gain cranked up to maximum for prosecuting targets under minimum ambient light, such as pure starlight conditions. Employing a suppressor under these conditions can be quite useful.

Suppressors are also quite valuable when employing NVDs in the CQB (Close Quarter Battle) environment. A suppressor will protect an operator’s NVD goggles from a tactically disastrous bloom or flare from his own muzzle flash, which can put some NVDs out of service for tens of seconds. When vulnerable NVD equipment is employed, it is advisable that every team member employ a suppressor or the muzzle flash from the weapon of a nearby team member could still generate a blinding bloom in each other’s goggles. This could not only put members of an entry team out of action at a critical juncture, the phenomenon could adversely affect the NVDs of security personnel guarding the team’s flanks, depending upon the sophistication of their night-vision sights. Finally, it should go without saying that each NVD should be retested prior to beginning every new operation.

Reduced Risk of “Friendly Fire” Accidents

As pointed out by suppressor and small-arms authority N.R. Parker in his outstanding technical manual, Tactical Uses of Suppressed Weapons, the use of silenced firearms can greatly reduce the risk of harming both team members and innocent bystanders due to so-called “friendly fire” accidents. Consider, for example, a number of tactical team members confronting a number of armed opponents in a large building or a ship. When all team members are using suppressed weapons and all opponents are using unsuppressed weapons, the location and positive identification of hostile opponents becomes much easier.

Then there is the matter of innocent bystanders. Consider a dynamic entry into a counter-terrorist situation where a small number of armed opponents are interspersed with a large number of hostages, such as in a bus or aircraft. A hostage is much less likely to panic and jump into the line of fire if tactical team members are employing suppressed weapons with subsonic ammunition as they move through the hostages to eliminate the terrorists. When combined with other advantages—such as the ability to hide the fact that a shot has been fired while moving from compartment to compartment, plus the preservation of operator hearing, plus enhanced command and control—it becomes abundantly clear that sound suppressors are very valuable tools.

Increasing Operational Security

This benefit of using a sound suppressor is a corollary to the problem of media relations, and relates to an extended operation such as might be experienced with a hostage situation involving multiple armed suspects and a large building. The electronic media will likely have large telephoto lenses and will be hungrily searching the area of operations for footage. If a sharpshooter discharges an unsuppressed firearm, real-time TV coverage could reveal the location of the shooter to the armed suspects if any of them is monitoring television coverage. This could subject the sharpshooter to counter-sniper fire or limit subsequent tactical options. Using a suppressed arm with supersonic ammunition will misdirect media attention away from the shooter and either toward the target area or circa 90 degrees from the bullet flight path. Using a suppressed arm with subsonic ammunition could hide the event from notice, especially one arranged some type of sonic camouflage.

Improved Practical Accuracy and Speed of Follow-Up Shots

As discussed earlier, sound suppressors tend to improve the accuracy of a precision rifle by dampening barrel harmonics, and suppressors also dramatically reduce felt recoil, which reduces shooter fatigue. The reduced recoil also enables the operator to improve his effectiveness in several additional ways.

For example, reduced recoil eliminates shooter flinch. It will prove useful in the following discussion to define flinch as “body movements (commonly the shoulder jumping forward accompanied by a jerking of the trigger finger) that move the rifle before the shooter feels any shock of recoil.” This potential problem gets worse as once moves up from the .308 Winchester to more powerful cartridges like the .300 Winchester Magnum and .300 Dakota. While this may seem like a penetrating glimpse into the obvious, the elimination of flinch improves practical accuracy.

The bigger cartridges may also generate an additional problem called anticipatory flinch. This is a phenomenon where the shooter operating a weapon with substantial recoil actually closes both eyes just before flinching in anticipation of the recoil punch. It’s pretty hard to place a precise shot with the eyes closed. One must see the crosshairs at the moment the trigger breaks. While closing the eyes in this fashion sounds like a stunt that would only be pulled by a rank novice or nonshooter, sniper instructors inform me that this behavior is not uncommon among armed professionals shooting the more powerful cartridges common in law-enforcement armories.

Using a sound suppressor eliminates both flinch and anticipatory flinch in 80-90 percent of observed cases. A suppressor also enables the shooter to see the bullet strike, which greatly speeds up the decision-making process involved in determining if a second round should be placed in the target. Reduced recoil also speeds up the acquisition of other targets should that be necessary.

Conclusions

Clearly, the use of sound suppressors and low-signature weapons should not be limited to SWAT and special-response teams, or to urban departments. LSWs also provide excellent tools for training, animal control, and reducing the likelihood of public-relations and media-relations problems. Whether employing a silenced .22 pistol to eliminate a poisonous snake from a garden, using a suppressed Camp Carbine kill a potentially rabid dog for laboratory analysis to possibly save a child from a horrendous battery of injections (note: the animal’s brain must be left fully intact for laboratory analysis!), fitting an integrally silenced 300 Whisper upper receiver assembly to an M16 for putting down problem deer at the county airport, or using a suppressed .22 rifle to flatten the tires of a potential getaway vehicle, LSWs can make the job easier and safer. Sound suppressors are valuable, versatile and under-utilized tools of the trade.

The preceding discussion is not intended to be the last word on the practical employment of low-signature weapons. Rather, I hope this discussion stimulates the creative process and the subsequent dialog on solving problems with low-signature weapons. These tools can be as versatile as the creativity of the persons using them. It is also worth pointing out that recent publications such as Paulson (1996) evaluate quality sound suppressors produced by many additional manufacturers not cited in the preceding discussion and Parker (1997) provides additional information regarding the tactical employment of sound suppressors.

Further Reading

Parker, N.R. 1997. Tactical Uses of Suppressed Weapons. ATI Star Press, Boise, ID. In press. $15 plus $2 s&h (single copies free if requested from Gemtech on agency letterhead).Available from Gemtech, P.O. Box 3538, Boise, ID 83703. Check, money order, or VISA ok.

Paulson, A.C. 1996. Silencer History and Performance. Volume 1, Sporting and Tactical Silencers. Paladin Press, Boulder, CO. 424 pp. $50 plus $5 s$h.Available from Wideworld, P.O. Box 1827, Conway, AR 72033. Check or money order ok (no POs or CODs please).

Manufacturers Cited

Arms Tech Inc., 5121 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85012.

AWC Systems Technology, P.O. Box 41938, Phoenix, AZ 85080-1938.

Black Hills Ammunition, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-9827.

Engel Ballistic Research, Rt. 2, Box 177C, Smithville, TX 78957

John’s Guns, 3010A Hwy. 155 N., Palestine, TX 75801

Gemtech, P.O. Box 3538, Boise, ID 83703.

SCRC, P.O. Box 660, Katy, TX 77492-0660.

SIOPTS, 570A Industrial Park Drive, Newport News, VA 23608.

Sound Technology, P.O. Box 391, Pelham, AL 35124.

Special Op’s Shop, P.O. Box 978, Madisonville, TN 37354

SSK Industries, 721 Woodview Lane, Wintersville, OH 43952

Note: there are many other fine suppressor manufacturers in the marketplace in addition to those cited in this article.

Problem Solving With Low Signature Weapons: Part II

Hiding the Shooter

Using a suppressor to hide the location of the shooter is most commonly used by military snipers employing conventional (i.e., supersonic) ammunition. The suppressor thus enables the sniper to shoot more times (i.e., engage more targets) than might otherwise be prudent. Using a suppressor also dramatically reduces the risk from effective counter-sniper fire and improves the odds of a successful withdrawal from the enemy contact if circumstances warrant. Protection from counter-fire can also be an advantage in some law-enforcement scenarios, as well.

The suppressor hides the location of the shooter for three reasons.

(1) At typical engagement distances, most suppressors will lower the muzzle signature to less than the action noise of a self-loading rifle and less than the bullet flight noise. Thus, an individual who is downrange will attempt to locate the source of the sound not from the muzzle blast, but rather from the bullet flight noise. It is not uncommon for an individual downrange to turn his attention 45-180 degrees away from the shooter under such circumstances. I’ve experienced this phenomenon myself, both from the shooter’s position, and from an observer’s position as bullets fired from a silenced rifle passed close to my body while standing in the open. Both are dramatic experiences.

Generating this level of confusion by the use of a suppressor only works when the observer is within an arc of about 150 degrees in front of the shooter. Suppressors are less effective when observers are to either side of the shooter. Observers behind the shooter can locate the source of a suppressed shot from the direction of the sound as readily as if the shooter was using an unsuppressed rifle, as long as he or she can hear the ballistic crack. (Of course, if the observer can hear the muzzle blast or action noise from behind the shooter, then locating the source of the shot is easy.)

Using a suppressor with supersonic ammunition confuses downrange observers because the brain interprets the location of the sound to be perpendicular to the shock wave generated by the bullet. The amount of confusion is actually determined by three variables: bullet speed, distance between the observer and the shooter, and distance between the observer and the bullet flight path. Equations can be used to precisely calculate the amount of anticipated observer bias (the angle between the real and apparent location of the shooter) at a given temperature.

Another reason some individuals down range are confused as to the source of a suppressed gunshot is that the sound of the bullet strike draws their attention in the absence of a perceived muzzle signature. If bullet impact is behind them, for example, individuals between the shooter and the point of bullet impact may well turn their back to the shooter.

Furthermore, the advanced operator can position himself so that natural reflective surfaces (such as buildings, telephone poles, boulders and vehicles) will reflect the ballistic crack of a supersonic projectile away from the shooter, further enhancing the natural subterfuge generated by the wake produced by a supersonic bullet fired from a suppressed rifle. This skill takes some effort to develop, but it will become as natural as playing billiards, given enough practice.

Ironically, when using subsonic ammunition, an observer near the bullet flight path can frequently follow the “swishing” flight noise of the bullet back to the source of the shot. If a target is missed, he or she may have a pretty good idea where to shoot back, depending on such factors as environmental conditions and observer alertness.

(2) Using a suppressor also dramatically reduces the amount of energy available to disturb grass, leaves, twigs, and dust. This mitigates one of the greatest risks to the survival of a military sniper.

(3) While flash hiders can be quite effective at eliminating flash, which can be the most dramatic giveaway of a shooter’s position, they do nothing to tame recoil. And recoil compensators do not eliminate flash. All suppressors provide a substantial reduction of recoil, and properly designed suppressors dampen muzzle flash more effectively than flash hiders.

Thus a suppressor, combined with good field craft, can maximize the effectiveness and survivability of a sniper. One aspect of good field craft is rarely discussed, yet could easily negate the advantages of using a suppressor, relates to the ejection of brass.

The ejection of a spent cartridge case can catch sunlight and blaze for an instant like a camera flash. In Vietnam, U.S. snipers found that the flash of expended brass was one of the best tools for locating enemy shooters. This phenomenon is the main reason why most military snipers prefer manually operated, rather than semiautomatic, rifles. Admittedly, at least in theory, manually operated rifles should also be capable of better accuracy and reliability. When ejecting a case from a bolt-action rifle, the military operator should operate the bolt slowly and quietly until he can palm the empty case. Never leaving behind the spent cases (or food wrappers or other artifacts) has become a common operational theme among military snipers, so that the enemy cannot readily detect where the sniper’s hide was located. This makes tracking the sniper and anticipating future hide locations much more difficult. Getting back to the stealthy ejection of a spent case, it is desirable if circumstances permit to actually move the rifle under the operator’s body to help muffle the sound and to shield any possible glint from the brass case.

Law-enforcement snipers do not require the severe brass-management strategies now en vogue with military snipers. The simple expedient of draping a camouflaged cloth, frequently called a sniper veil, over the telescopic sight and back over the action and head. These cloths are generally large enough to fold on the ground to catch expended brass and shield any glint from escaping. The veil also helps shade the sniper from hot sun or shield the face and hands from cold wind. Fishing weights may be sewn into the corners of the cloth to keep it from fluttering on windy days.

While suppressor technology has matured dramatically in recent years, one aspect of stealthy shooting remains virtually ignored: the bright reflective finish of the brass cartridge case. Surely a manufacturer could develop a practical coating process that would give the case a non-reflective black finish. That would greatly facilitate the speed of follow-up shots and might also make semiautomatic rifles more practical for military sniping. Non-reflective black cases would certainly complement the use of a suppressor.

Although this attention to detailed field craft is highly relevant to the military operator, palming spent cases and some other aspects of military tactics vis-à-vis the employment of low-signature weapons are not really relevant to the law-enforcement officer. It should be emphasized that the mission of a military sniper is vastly different from a law-enforcement sharpshooter. A police marksman will attempt to get as close to the target as possible since placing a cold shot into a target’s CNS (central nervous system) is essential to instantaneously eliminate the subject’s ability to harm hostages or officers. Police shots will normally be less than 100 yards. A military sniper, on the other hand, will try to stay as far away from the target as possible to reduce the danger of effective counter-fire after he places a center-of-mass hit on a high-value target such as an officer, RTO operator, or personnel operating a crew-served weapon. Therefore, U.S. military snipers would prefer to take shots from a distance of 500-600 yards or more. Thus, bear in mind as this discussion continues that military and law-enforcement technologies do overlap—but missions, tactics and rules of engagement are commonly quite divergent.

The stealthiness of a suppressed gunshot has implications beyond strictly tactical considerations. Stealthiness also has what might be termed strategic implications; a properly employed low-signature weapon can prevent awkward to downright ugly problems with citizen sensibilities and headline-hungry news media.

Reducing Media-Relations and Public-Relations Problems

This area probably represents the single most useful—and the single most underutilized—application for silencer technology in the law-enforcement arena.

Outside of urban areas, common problems faced by law-enforcement officers include putting down an animal injured by traffic and responding to calls reporting a potentially rabid animal or a poisonous snake. One officer from southern Wisconsin recently had to deal with a crazed deer wreaking havoc inside a hardware store, another in Louisiana responded to a poisonous snake in a swimming pool, and an officer in Alaska had to dispatch a moose that tangled with a pickup truck. Using a duty sidearm or shotgun to put down an injured or potentially dangerous animal poses a potential public-relations nightmare if a small crowd has gathered or the animal is in a residential area. Most civilians are mightily upset by the noise of nearby gunfire, and their discomfort level is directly proportional to the intensity of the noise.

Perhaps the most useful tool for such problems is an integrally suppressed .22 rimfire pistol, although one should have previously consulted with a game biologist or veterinarian as to shot placement when dealing with anything larger than small game. This is particularly important when dealing with a potentially rabid animal, since its brain must be kept intact for analysis. Destroying the brain or allowing the animal to escape due to an improperly placed bullet would subject the victim of a bite wound to a grizzly series of anti-rabis shots.

Most silenced .22 pistols are built on the Ruger Mark II and feature a suppressor of the same diameter as the receiver. Thus most individuals will view this as a bull-barrel pistol even seen from an arm span or two. Furthermore, close observers who see such a firearm being used seem to conclude from the minimal noise generated by the pistol that some sort of low-power “humane” specialty ammunition was used. That’s especially useful if ultrasensitive environmentalists are encountered. Anyone inside a structure is unlikely to hear anything at all. I once fired a double tap from a suppressed Ruger pistol just outside of a frame structure three arm spans away from a woman washing dishes in her kitchen, and she didn’t hear a thing through the window that separated us.

A suppressed .22 pistol has several other interesting attributes. It can be kept unobtrusively in a small hardcase in the trunk of a squad until needed; a suppressed .22 rifle would tend to get in the way, present a higher profile when responding to a call, and might be more prone to damage in a squad’s trunk. The suppressed pistol can be carried in the case until ready to shoot. Simply evaluate the problem, make sure of a safe back stop, shoot as necessary, and dispose of the remains according to departmental policy. You should police up the fired cases as well. It’s amazing how discreet this process can be when the principal sound is the soft “thud, thud” of .22 caliber bullet impact.

Sometimes, however, a suppressed, bolt-action .22 rimfire rifle is the tool of choice. When employed with subsonic ammunition, this tool excels in two principal areas: (1) animal control in open areas such as airports and parks: and (2) the selective destruction of objects such as lights that create a problem for surveillance or entry teams. If one has the luxury of time, problem lights should be taken out a day or two prior to an operation—preferably while using a masking sound such as a loud motorcycle, garbage truck or helicopter flyby, as appropriate, to cover the tinkle of breaking glass and any possible ricochet. The use of masking sounds to hide a suppressed gunshot dates back at least as far as the Vietnam War. American suppressor designer Don Walsh, who spent considerable time in Indochina and now resides in Thailand, coined the term sonic camouflage for the practice.

Then there is the matter of media relations. The media seem to operate on the principal that “if it bleeds, it leads.” This problem is exacerbated by a general lack of understanding concerning the ethical and legal aspects of using lethal force. Furthermore, media personnel and lawyers also tend to have an appalling lack of understanding regarding firearms and ammunition. Using a .44 Magnum, for example, is likely to be perceived as excessive force. Yet, despite the fact that the .308 Winchester delivers three times more energy downrange, it seems much smaller to the eye and doesn’t have that nasty “M” word in its name. Thus it should come as no surprise that using a suppressed firearm reduces the perceived level of force by reducing the weapon’s noise.

Using a suppressed firearm also redirects media attention. If supersonic ammunition is used, the shot will appear to have originated near the point where the round struck. If subsonic ammunition is employed, the media may not even know when lethal force is used until other activity or a press briefing reveals that the situation has been resolved.

Beside providing a means to prevent PR problems, sound suppressors are useful for solving a variety of additional problems which will be examined in the conclusion to this discussion in the next issue of SAR. Specifically, we’ll explore the use of low-signature weapons to (1) enhance command and control; (2) preserve operator hearing, especially in confined spaces; (3) reduce the likelihood of detonation when operating in a potentially explosive atmosphere; (4) improve the quality and safety of live-fire training; (5) reduce muzzle blast and recoil; (6) safeguard human night vision and electronic night vision devices; (7) reduce the risk of so-called “friendly fire” accidents; (8) increase operational security, and (9) improve both practical accuracy and the speed of follow-up shots.