By Al Paulson

While the oldest working pistol silencer probably dates back to a French design from about the time of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871, and the first silencer patent dates from 1899, Hiram Percy Maxim’s Model 1909 silencer was the first commercially successful silencer in the world. I recently stumbled across a Maxim Model 1909 silencer fitted to an apparently hand made, one-of-a-kind single shot pistol that had been in continuous use for killing cattle at a slaughterhouse in Texas since 1909. The Maxim was still going strong, having survived a 91-year torture test. I have never run across a silencer that has been in continuous service for anywhere nearly as long as this particular specimen. This Model 1909 served as a working tool, not as a collectable historical artifact, from 1909 until 2000. Clearly, Hiram Percy Maxim could build a robust silencer. Furthermore, the level of performance, even after nearly a century of steady use, will be surprising.

The dawn of the 20th century brought a new phenomenon to modern life: noise pollution. While referring to noise as “pollution” would not happen for generations to come, the reality was that the amount of noise assaulting the senses was growing exponentially throughout the United States at the dawn of the 20th century, adding very real stress to urban life in the Golden Age. Street cars, gas engines, motor cycles, motor cars, motor boats, recorded music, steam exhausts, assembly lines, and Diesel engines added to the gentler, more traditional sounds of trains and horse-drawn carriages and wagons. Some New England mills were so noisy that they tormented people ten miles away. The country swelled with a great wave of immigration, and the population pushed outward from urban centers, where they tended to find the ubiquitous American pastime of shooting a disquieting and intrusive form of noise pollution.

Maxim firmly believed that noise could wreak havoc on the human nervous system, a belief that has been confirmed by a nearly century of subsequent medical research. Maxim declared a personal war on noise. In 1906, he designed a firearms silencer for a .30-30 rifle based upon the principle of creating a whirlpool of gases inside the silencer, like water going down the drain of a bathtub, leaving a neat little clear hole through which a bullet could travel unimpeded. This led to the development of the Model 1908 silencer, which was patented in 1909.

The Model 1908 looked something like a conch shell stuck on the end of the Winchester lever-action rifle. It was a less than stellar performer. Undaunted, Maxim’s experiments revealed that simply creating turbulence inside the suppressor to slow the gases and delay their release from the silencer worked very well.

This revelation eventually led to the development of the Maxim Model 1909 silencer, which was patented in 1910. A prolific writer, Maxim continued his war against noise by adding a second front: a campaign to win hearts and minds with a series of articles discussing his view that noise was one of the principal problems of the day. He also began an advertising blitz (to borrow a phrase from the next generation) extolling the virtues of the Maxim Silencer in the mainstream magazines of the day, including the likes of New Yorker Magazine, Scribner’s, Popular Mechanics, McClure’s, Redbook, Yachting Magazine, and the National Sportsman.

The Maxim Model 1909 was replaced a year later by the improved and more compact Model 1910. Most historians have referred to the Model 1910 as the finest of Maxim variants. Nevertheless, after having shot a variety of Maxim Model 1909 silencers on a variety of .22 pistols and rifles, I have developed a particular respect for the Model 1909. It may be a bit bulky, but it does perform.

The Maxim Model 1909 silencer is an eccentric design fabricated from soft, malleable steel baffles and tubing, with a machined rear end piece that serves as the mount and rear end cap. The Model 1909 variant evaluated in this study measures 4.88 inches overall, while the tube length is 4.55 inches. The tube diameter is 1.35 inches and it is press fit into the machined rear end cap, where a rivet on the left side of the rear end cap secures the tube in place. Two pressed grooves around the circumference of the tube toward the rear of the suppressor secure thick blast baffles, while one 3.77 inch longitudinal groove running along the bottom of the tube aligns the asymmetrical baffles. The exit hole in the front baffle, which serves as a press fit end cap secured by rolling the suppressor tube inward at the front end, measures 0.31 inch. The mount in the rear end cap features 1/2×20 TPI interrupted female threads for screwing onto a threaded barrel. The suppressor weighs 6.8 ounces. Once blued, the finish is well worn. The top of the machined rear end cap is stamped “22 CALIBRE” and the rear face of the rear end cap is stamped:

MAXIM SILENT FIREARMS CO.
NEW YORK
PATENT MARCH 30, 1909

The patent date stamped on the silencer is a bit misleading. The date actually refers to U.S. Patent 916,885 for the Model 1908 silencer. The patent application for the Model 1909 silencer was submitted on October 8, 1908 but U.S. Patent 958,931 was not granted until May 24, 1910. The suppressor was registered as required after the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 and carries an “IRS” prefixed serial number.

The hand-made single-shot pistol is a side-break design featuring a pull-cock striker. The overall length of the pistol is 9.25 inches, and maximum height is 4.65 inches. Barrel length is 6.97 inches. The receiver is 0.73 inch thick, the walnut grips are 1.16 inches thick, and the pistol weighs 24.0 ounces without the Maxim silencer. The barrel is threaded 1/2×20 TPI to accept the Maxim suppressor. Design of the pistol is robust and thoughtful, and the trigger nothing short of awesome. Trigger pull is a remarkably crisp 4.3 pounds, breaking like the proverbial “glass rod” (a wonderfully descriptive but horribly hackneyed expression I’m using here with great circumspection, for only the second time in my life, since no other turn of phrase really fits).

Contrary to conventional wisdom that the Model 1910 was a better silencer than the Model 1909, I discovered during informal shooting of this handmade single-shot pistol that the Model 1909 seemed noticeably quieter than my memory of the Model 1910. The Model 1909 seemed to provide both lower sound signatures and a softer sound with less of a hard, uncorking component. To test this hypothesis, I arranged to test fire the Model 1909 on a vintage Colt Woodsman (production began on March 29, 1915) fitted at the factory with a sleeve adapter to accept a Maxim silencer on the pistol’s 6.5 inch barrel. I compared the performance of the Model 1909 suppressor with a Maxim Model 1910 on the same afternoon using Remington high velocity (HV), standard velocity target (SVT) and subsonic ammunition at a temperature of 88 degrees Fahrenheit. Table 1 compares the sound signatures measured 1 meter to the left of the muzzle or silencer, expressed as decibels (dB). Table 2 provides the net sound reductions.

To look the relevant data at from a historical perspective, in terms of what Hiram Maxim experienced himself during the Golden Age before the outbreak of the Great War, one should consider only the data for standard velocity ammunition. The first high velocity .22 rimfire cartridge was not introduced until 1930 (by Remington, as it turns out), and .22 subsonic ammunition did not appear until relatively recently. The data show that the Maxim Model 1909 significantly outperforms the Model 1910 with both period-equivalent and modern ammunition, beating the Model 1910 by 8-10 decibels. That’s a whopping big difference when you consider that the decibel scale is logarithmic rather than linear.

Furthermore, the data—including the high velocity and subsonic numbers—also show that the Model 1909 performs very well by modern standards, delivering 30-33 dB net sound reductions, depending upon ammunition. Finally, this Maxim Model 1909 silencer survived a 91-year torture test of regular work in a slaughterhouse. The silencer kept animals waiting their turn from becoming alarmed and unmanageable, making the process more humane. The silencer also protected generation upon generation of workers from hearing loss.

While the Maxim’s blued finish is a distant memory, the can remains robust after countless thousands of rounds and nearly a century of use. Considering its excellent structural condition today, I see no reason why this Maxim Model 1909 cannot deliver another 91 years of service. If we assume (30 cattle killed/day) (5 days/week) (52 weeks/year) (91 years) = 709,800 rounds fired through this old veteran thus far.

Underrated and largely overlooked by historians, it turns out that the Model 1909 silencer represents one of the most remarkable achievements of a remarkably influential and insightful man. Hiram Percy Maxim’s Model 1909 silencer must be considered one of the greatest suppressor designs of all time.

Born of necessity and requirements of the SOE, the Welrod silenced pistol was created to fulfill a need for an exceptionally quiet, easily concealed, and highly lethal assassination handgun. Designed around the standard European police cartridge, the 7.65×18 mm (.32ACP), the Welrod was a magazine fed, locked breech, manually loaded, integrally suppressed weapon for use at extremely close ranges. The weapon featured a ported barrel surrounded by wire mesh followed by a suppression chamber filled with stacked flat washer-type baffles and wipes with the wipes placed at intervals among the baffles. The original wipes were oiled leather, but it was found that the oil smoked too badly. Subsequent wipes were felt, cork, or a rubber material. The exit endcap was recessed and had a terminal wipe. The purpose of the recessed end cap was to allow space for the wipe to expand when the weapon was pressed against the target’s body, making the target a part of the suppression system.

There is some debate as to the origin of the name, “Welrod.” Originally referred to as the Hand Firing Device, J. David Truby offers two possible explanations of the nickname, Welrod. One is that it was developed near Wells, and in deference to the OSS and American slang of “rod” for gun, it became known as the “Welrod.” The other relates to England’s Welwyn Herts Laboratory where a number of clandestine weapons were developed for Britain’s SOE. The real name of the actual designer remains cloaked in British secrecy, even to this day. Actual production was performed under great secrecy at Birmingham Small Arms Company in Small Heath, Birmingham, UK.

Built primarily in caliber 7.65mm (Mk-2), a limited number of Welrods were also built in the standard 9mm military cartridge (Mk-1). Reports indicate that subjectively the 7.65mm version was considerably quieter than the 9mm. The Welrod has been built by a number of countries (including the United States), but the vast majority are British. Usually the weapon either had no markings whatsoever or perhaps carried a serial number. The reason for a paucity of markings was official deniability. The exception are the ones built in the United States, which had multiple lines of markings including description, model, caliber, actual manufacturer (and location) as well as stock number. (Dan’s note: The Brits consider this “Absolutely Brilliant!”; a supersecret clandestine weapon with all the info on it! Crazy Yanks!)

Although the Welrod originated in Great Britain, it was subsequently manufactured by several other countries, including the United States. The degree of suppression has been described as essentially totally silent by both users and observers.

In our latest expedition to the United Kingdom, the SAR Expeditionary Force recently had the opportunity to not only fire two original Welrod pistols but to also do accurate sound measurements. To the best of our knowledge, no accurate objective sound pressure level measurements of the Welrod were available or had been performed with modern MIL-SPEC sound measuring equipment.

We are deeply indebted to Gregory Felton of Law Enforcement International, Ltd. for providing the weapons, ammunition, sound meter, and range facilities outside of London for the testing.

Although weekend London traffic is bad, weekday traffic is abominable. It is even more difficult for Yanks in that we had to get used to driving on the other side of the road. Arriving somewhat later than expected at the LEI offices, we chose a number of weapons for testing, including two different Welrod pistols in caliber 7.65 mm. Both were of British origin and neither had any markings or serial numbers, which is typical. One was in absolute original condition, although it had been fired previously and the wipes were both used and brittle. The other had new wipes installed. LEI has a Larson-Davis Laboratories 800B sound level meter with the correct LDL 2530 microphone and a LDL CA-250 calibrator. The meter also included a RS-232 interface, enabling us to drive the meter with a laptop computer to rapidly acquire, record, and analyze the data.

After packing the car, we were more than happy to let Greg Felton navigate London traffic and head for the range. Although the day started sunny, the forecast was for heavy rain and high winds. We left under threatening skies, and once on the motorway, Greg treated us to an example of how to get to the range in minimal time. Shooting in the United Kingdom is far different than in the US, and shooting can only be performed at a registered range with a written log kept of calibers and shots fired. The range LEI had reserved was privately owned and was located on a farm about an hour and a half drive from London, even at speeds of 125 mph. Originally part of a WW-II Allied air strip, the range had been used to test the machine guns on Spitfire aircraft. The remains of the airstrip were subsequently returned to farmland with a current crop of rye. The owner, a shooter and foxhunter himself, maintained the range.

Upon arriving and posting the required signs along the road and warning red flags, we set up the meter, calibrated it, and prepared for shooting. Although breezy and threatening rain, the windscreen on the microphone prevented wind noise contamination of the readings. The temperature was 20° C (70° F), the humidity approximately 80%, and the barometric pressure 740 mmHg. Not having a test stand similar to the one I use in Idaho or what Al Paulson uses, we improvised using a 1-meter blue ribbon for spacing the muzzle from the microphone, which was attached to a camera tripod. I operated the meter and laptop, Greg Felton was the shooter, and Dan Shea carefully checked position and alignment prior to each shot. Dan also was the official photographer.

The protocol used was that described in the August 2000 issue of Small Arms Review, “Firearms Sound Measurement Techniques” and met the requirements of MIL-STD-1474C as applied to small arms fire. We made all measurements with the microphone located 1 meter to the left of the muzzle at right angles to the bore axis. Although normal testing protocol is for averaging a string of 10 shots, we abbreviated the string to five shots. This was primarily because of the rarity and age of the weapons. All of the measurements were made in a 15-minute period.

There is no such thing as a non-suppressed Welrod, and for non-suppressed measurement data, we used a Walther PP pistol in 7.65mm with a barrel 1/2 inch longer than normal. We subsequently used this same weapon to measure the weapon’s LEI manufactured suppressor, the subject of another article. The average of five shots non-suppressed was 156.8 dB with less than 0.2 dB variation between the shots.

Following non-suppressed measurements of the cartridge, we tested the original Welrod. This weapon, almost 50 years old, dated to World War II. It was completely original (including the wipes and internal meshes) and had seen considerable usage. The wipes in the front end cap were brittle and fairly well shot out, and I suspect they were worn enough that the projectile didn’t even touch the wipes. Measurements were not quite as fast as with a semi-automatic weapon, because the bolt had to be manually cycled after each shot. Although no hearing protection was required and the sound levels were not uncomfortable, the degree of suppression subjectively was less than what one would expect. Metering confirmed this impression with the average of five shots being 142.4 dB, a reduction of only 14.4 dB as compared to the non-suppressed Walther reference weapon. In spite of the weapon being well used and well worn, there was virtually no first round pop and little shot-to-shot variation.

Our next test weapon was Greg’s other Welrod, also caliber 7.65mm. Although this weapon dated to the same mid-1940s period, it had been restored to original condition with new wipes that occluded the bore passage completely, Greg assured us that all the internal parts had been refurbished in a similar manner. The difference was dramatic, and subjectively this Welrod was “Hollywood quiet.” The actual objective sound measurements showed an average of five rounds to have a sound level of 122.8 dB with no first round pop and with no shot more than 1 dB from the average. Compared to the non-suppressed Walther, the reduction was 34.2 dB. The weapon sounded quieter than a CO2 pellet pistol!

There were several other early sound measurements performed in the United States, including at Aberdeen in 1966 and by Frankfort Arsenal in 1968. To the best of my knowledge, these did not include non-suppressed measurements. Although the best available at the time, the equipment used would not meet current specifications required by MIL-STD-1474C. The Frankfort Arsenal measurement location was 5 meters to the side of the muzzle while the current preferred location is 1 meter to the left of the muzzle. I do not know the Aberdeen test protocol. Most of the sound pressure levels were not totally believable, even when calculating the differences due to differing microphone locations. Undoubtedly this was a function of the available measuring equipment (including excessive meter rise time).

Although the sound meter as an objective measurement is an important benchmark, it does not tell the entire story. There are a number of air (pellet) pistols with similar sound levels and some integrally suppressed .22 rimfire pistols with a slightly lower sound level. The subjective evaluation of the Welrod is that it makes less noise than these other weapons. Part of the reason is the locked breech. Although left-of-muzzle measurements of the .22-rimfire weapons may meter a lower sound level, subjectively they are louder due to right-hand ejection port noise. Further, the Welrod, with its wipes, significantly changes the sound characteristic with elimination of virtually all the higher frequency sounds. The sound of the Welrod being fired in a quiet location is almost imperceptible at 15 feet. In a noisy environment and with the muzzle in actual contact with the intended target, it would be inaudible even to the operator.

In the opinion of the members of the SAR Expeditionary Force, the Welrod achieved its design goals as an easily concealed, lethal assassination weapon. We can easily understand why it is still classified as an operational weapon even 60 years after its inception.

We are deeply indebted to Greg Felton and Law Enforcement International, Ltd. of London, UK for providing us the weapons, facilities, time, and great companionship for these tests.

References:

Dater, Philip, “Sound Measurement Techniques,” Small Arms Review, V. 3 No. 11, Aug 2000
Truby, J. David, “The Ugliest 60 Year Old Gun I Ever Saw,” Small Arms Review, V. 2 No. 4, Jan 1999
Truby, J. David, Silencers, Snipers & Assassins, Palladin Press, 1972

By Matt Smith

SAR: How did you get interested in manufacturing?

JONATHAN: It all started when I was five years old and my grandmother bought me a Tonka truck, which I played with. Later, the mechanical stuff started when I would buy junker motorcycles, taking them apart and putting them back together. I started with a Comet motor scooter that had a Briggs and Stratton motor in it. My dad and I made it run and kept it running. One day the frame broke, and I dropped by a machine shop to get it fixed. The machinist made me a gusset on a Bridgeport and heli-arced it onto the frame. I thought this was the coolest thing, and told myself that one day I would own one of those machines. I finally bought a Sears Atlas lathe for $200 that I used to make my first silencers on, and I still have it. Later, we bought a bigger lathe for $600, and were using a drill vice in the drill press to drill the holes. We finally got a manual Bridgeport after a nine month wait and paying $2000. The last machine we bought was for $400,000, and we bought two of those!

SAR: How did your interest in firearms develop?

JONATHAN: It began when I started going to the local gun shop in Cocoa, where I would buy a gun, put some money down, and pick it up when I paid the balance of the money. I got an AR-15 way back when I was in college, then I got an Atchisson MK I .22 conversion kit. I started playing around with silencers, and found them to be pretty nice, so I decided to build some of my own to see if they would sell. I put a one or two inch ad in Shotgun News, and I was the first person to ever do that, to commercially sell silencers. The phone started ringing. At the time, I was building houses with my brother. He was a contractor and had the big crew cab Ford pick-up trucks with the old style mobile phone that hung down from the ceiling. It was as big as a damn shoebox. My brother complained because I had put the mobile phone number in the ad. It got to the point that I was spending lots of time on the radio phone at the construction site and it started to get in the way of the contractors getting a hold of me to build houses. When the housing boom died during the Carter Administration, it allowed me to turn all my attention to building silencers. Instead of doing this in the evenings and on the weekends, as I had been, I went full time in the garage at home.

SAR: What were the first models of silencers that you made?

JONATHAN: They were the M16, 10/22, and the MK II pistol. These designs, although considered old technology by some, still hold up well next to the newer silencers on the market. As I tell people, it’s like a car. Give me an old ’66 Mustang, and I’ll still be driving down the road when you’re in getting your computer box on yours fixed. I can get any parts I need at the local auto parts store for pennies, compared to having to buy a $400 carburetor that you can’t take apart any more.

SAR: Is that what you drive, a Mustang?

JONATHAN: No, classic Mustangs are now too expensive because people realize the value of old technology.

SAR: How long did you operate out of your garage?

JONATHAN: I did that less than a couple of years, and bought a building in Titusville, in 1979. We moved to our current location in Cape Canaveral in 1991, after outgrowing the Titusville shop. The new machines that I needed wouldn’t fit in the old shop. We had to cut a hole in the ceiling for the one we had and have a crane set it in through the ceiling. We had to build a stack hood on the roof because of the height of the machine. The old shop had been 3000 square feet, and the new one is 15,000 square feet. We are now at the point where we’ve about outgrown this place.

SAR: Before the machinegun ban in 1986, what were some of your machinegun conversions?

JONATHAN: Mostly AR-15’s to select fire, AK’s. Uzi’s, and HK’s including the MP5 with the integral one stamp suppressor.

SAR: How much notice did you have that the machinegun ban was coming in 1986?

JONATHAN: Lots! So we built sears like Fleming and others did, as fast as we could build them. My design was different though. I actually stopped making them after so many, figuring that I had more than enough to sell in any reasonable amount of time. Now, this turns out to have been a serious mistake.

SAR: Were the manufacturers worried that they would also ban silencers at this time?

JONATHAN: People that didn’t listen to what was going on may have thought this, but if you paid attention to the news and the congressional record, it was not in there. The way it came down, the Democrats conspired in the 11th hour and 55 minutes even though they weren’t that prepared and didn’t think that the ban would actually go through. Unfortunately for us, it did, so the law was passed. Fortunately, we still had time before it was signed by the President to build all the stuff we wanted.

SAR: What about your destructive devices business?

JONATHAN: I gave it up, because there wasn’t any money in it. I made about 24 M203 40MM grenade launchers. It was fun, entertaining, and interesting to do something different for a while, but it didn’t pay the bills, and I ended up dropping my DD license.

SAR: Back in the early days of the business, who else was manufacturing suppressors?

JONATHAN: Doc Dater was. Later, he was connected with Lynn McWilliams and AWC. Reed Knight came along a little later, but he only sold to the military. I don’t care to do business with the military, too much paper work, red tape, and too many people trying to cut each others throats to get the contracts, and after spending a lot of time and money somebody else usually ends up with the contract and you walk away with nothing.

SAR: When did you first get involved with the .22 LR conversion kits?

JONATHAN: In 1984, we started the production of the Mini-14 .22 conversion kits. It was so successful that the people that owned the Atchisson MK II and were having trouble with their current manufacturer in Dayton, Ohio, called me up and asked if I would be interested in manufacturing their kits. After looking at it, we arrived at an agreement. I flew up to Dayton, rented a U-Haul Truck, picked up all the tooling, and brought it to the old shop in Titusville, and started building them. I eventually ended up buying the rights to the Atchisson kits, and now I own it all.

SAR: How did you get involved with miniguns?

JONATHAN: It started with John Wayne movies, where they used the old original Gatling guns. A person that likes mechanical things, who likes guns, what a perfect combination! I also had a hand crank BB machinegun as a kid that I ordered from the back of a cereal box for so many box tops and $5. I would set up my toy soldiers and then mow them down with my BB machinegun. I remember seeing my first miniguns in Viet Nam on the gunships. Later, at a Houston gun show, when I was on the road selling silencers at gun shows, I saw a minigun for sale for $5000. I stood drooling at this thing, and knew there wasn’t a possibility that I could come up with that kind of money at the time. Considering I was driving a Ford Escort stationwagon, building silencers on a $600 lathe, and lucky to sell $2000 worth of guns on the weekend, I knew I couldn’t lay down $5000 for something that was not going to create income and was just going to eat ammo. Dale Thomas of Paragon ended up with that gun, and then it went to Syd Stembridge in California. Dan Shea got it after that- from there I don’t know. I ended up building mine from scrap parts. I welded the housing back together, made the rotor, heat treated everything with acetylene torches on the floor of my shop and registered it before the machinegun ban. While looking for parts for the minigun, I picked up enough parts to put my Vulcan cannon together before the minigun was even finished.

SAR: When did manufacturing the .22 kits overtake the suppressor manufacturing as far as your time and interest?

JONATHAN: When the AR-15 kit came along. The Mini-14 kit was good and it moved along with the silencers, but when the AR kit came along, things really got busy. I updated the MKII to the MKIII by improving the firing pin, rails and other features and made it even more reliable. Three other AR-15 kits made by others have come and gone since I updated mine. My most successful conversion kit has been for the 1911 pistol. It has been unbelievable and has outsold all the others. The Glocks and Berettas have also been very successful and we recently unveiled Project X, a .22 conversion for the Thompson sub-machineguns. These are available for either the M1921/M1928 or the M1/M1A1 versions. With the current demand for my various .22 conversion kits and ideas for other firearms whose owners would like a .22 kit, it is to the point where we just don’t have time to devote to the suppressor business. There also are too many others who are making silencers now. I would eventually like to get to the point where I could just design and build the first prototypes of future projects and have someone else take over the day-to-day manufacturing and customer service. I would be content to do this and take a percent of the sales, wait a couple of months and then design and build the next prototype.

SAR: What .22 kit are you developing now?

JONATHAN: One for the Browning High Power pistol. SAR: Jon, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts with our readers.

JONATHAN: You are welcome.

Jonathan Arthur Ciener, Inc.
8700 Commerce Street
Cape Canaveral, FL 32920
PH (321) 868-2200
FAX (321) 868-2201
www.22lrconversions.com

By Matt Smith

SAR: Recount for us how you got started in the business.

PHIL: It started in 1976, when I purchased a couple of Military Armament Corporation suppressors. One of the suppressers was on a Ruger MK 1 pistol, and after a brick of ammunition, it was not quiet any more. After the manufacturer refused to service the suppressor, I took it apart myself and figured out a way to repack it with copper scouring pads, in place of the original screen discs. In 1978, I got my first manufacturers license as Automatic Weapons Company in New Mexico, and started producing an improved suppressed Ruger pistol as well as other types of suppressors. In 1981, Peter Kokalis came out and spent a couple days with me and wrote an article for Soldier of Fortune Magazine, which did me an amazing amount of good. In 1983, one of my dealers, Lynn McWilliams, in Friendswood, Texas, approached me and we worked out an arrangement, where he would take care of the manufacturing and I would do the research and development. In about 1989, we went our separate ways as friends. In 1985, Lynn’s business became known as AWC Systems Technology, and is now located in Phoenix. I moved to Boise in 1991. In 1993, Jim Ryan and Mark Weiss of JR Customs and I formed Gemtech with Greg Latka of GSL Technologies coming on as a major partner in early 1994. We worked together for several years, but in 1998, we decided to split up. Greg and I kept Gemtech while Jim and Mark formed Tactical Ordnance. A year ago, I hired Kel Whelan to do our marketing, sales, and office management. Although we have always had steady growth, in the last four to five months business has really boomed. (Dan’s Note: Phil, is “Boomed” really the right term to use for a suppressor business?)

SAR: How would you characterize your customer base?

PHIL: We’ve been growing each year, since being formed. We’ve been getting a lot more law enforcement usage of our products, while the civilian market has increased with moderate growth. Our products have been exported with many going to the Asian rim, and have sold to the U.S. Military in sole source procurements. Currently, our products are being used by our military in Afghanistan and Bosnia. Our customer base is about sixty-five percent civilian, thirty percent law enforcement, and roughly five percent military.

SAR: Are any of your old designs still in demand today?

PHIL: Yes, the SG-9 integral suppressor for the Sten MK II and Smith and Wesson 76, which I designed in 1976 is still in high demand. I build thirty or forty of these a year in my spare time, and there is still a waiting list.

SAR: What are your best selling suppressors?

PHIL: Currently, they are the M4-96D quick disconnect .223 suppressor, the 9mm Raptor for the MP-5, and the .22 LR screw-on Outback suppressor.

SAR: Who are some of the other suppressor designers that you think highly of?

PHIL: I’ve always had a lot of respect for Doug Olson, who worked for years with Mickey Finn, and then with Lynn McWilliams, and currently for Reed Knight. He’s a very innovative man. Reed Knight is well known for his designs and makes excellent products, although they are expensive. Lynn McWilliams at AWC has historically been good at business and marketing, and has been able to promote a good product. Of the newer designers, I’m impressed with Joe Gaddini of SWR, who is an independent thinker. The men that I respect are those who think on their own. Any monkey can take someone’s existing products, cut them open and clone them, or stuff dimpled washers into a tube and call it a suppressor. Doug Melton of SRT Arms I respect, as he is an independent thinker and not a copycat.

SAR: What are your thoughts about research and development?

PHIL: Research and development is something you have to devote a lot of money and time to. First, you have to see a need for a new product or product improvement. Typically, on a suppressor, this means that it is physically smaller or more efficient. We strive for both of these goals. One of our R&D success stories is the M4-96D suppressor, which was developed in five weeks. Jim and Mark in Washington did all the paper work for the Navy request and Greg designed the mount and several ideas for baffles, which he sent to me for testing. I tested various prototypes with a meter over a ten-day period. We started off with a 24 dB reduction and ended up with a 32.5 dB reduction suppressor in the same size envelope. We conducted the required testing and ended up with a suppressor that exceeded the Navy’s requirements. Unfortunately, we did not win the Navy contract, but we did develop one of our best sellers in a short amount of time.

SAR: Do you have any new products you can tell us about?

PHIL: Currently, we have a new .223 suppressor that we are calling the Piranha M4-02. It has been designed for law enforcement entry teams, and priced under $500. The dimensions are 1-3/8’s inches in diameter, 6-1/4 inches long, screws on the barrel, and does 29 dB reduction on an 11 and 1/2 inch upper. We also have a new device we call the Linear Inertial Decoupler. This started with an idea from Joe Gaddini, which Greg modified. It works like a Nielson device, except there is no piston to drive the barrel backwards. This eliminates damage to the firearm, which occasionally takes place when the Nielson Device is not tuned to the specific model weapon. Our Decoupler isolates the mass of the suppressor from the barrel to allow the barrel to start the unlocking process. This device is so successful that it can even be used on a Glock 26 or 19 with our suppressor for flawless cycling. A patent is being applied for on this new innovation, which is currently available on our Vortex 9 suppressor and will be available on a .45 suppressor for the HK and other pistols.

SAR: Do you also have another version of the M4-96D for the belt fed M249 machinegun?

PHIL: Yes, it is the M4-96E. This is a ruggedized version of the D and incorporates laser welding of the baffle stack to maintain rotational orientation perfectly. One of the problems with prolonged firing of the M249 is heat generation. Running a 250 round belt with a suppressor in place develops a core temperature in the suppressor of 1200 degrees F, with the barrel temperature around 1000 degrees F. These temperatures cause ammunition to come apart and deposit copper residue inside the suppressor. Firing full belts is certainly possible with a suppressor, but will severely limit the life span of the suppressor. We will only sell this suppressor to the military, where fire discipline requires shooting in bursts, rather than complete belts at a time. We also have a new .223 suppressor we call the M4-96X for export, which will mount on any NATO standard flash hider. The mount is licensed from abroad, for the military and export only. Our .308 TPRS has been undergoing a lot of changes over the last two years with the revision of the baffle stack, to solve some accuracy problems. It is now also capable of handling .300 Win Mag with no problem. It is a frequency shift unit that places much of the sound into the higher frequency range outside of human hearing. The suppressor is also extremely quiet when shot with EBR subsonic ammunition, which we heartily endorse. The Black Hills subsonic .308 is also a solid performer.

SAR: Has the Internet been beneficial to your business?

PHIL: It’s of marginal value. The discussion boards seem to generate very little business for us, but are a value to the general public. We have a web site (www.gem-tech.com), which acts as a convenient international catalog. A number of law enforcement agencies have found and contacted us through our web site.

SAR: How have your printed ads in SAR done for you?

PHIL: We have gotten really good response to all of our ads in SAR. The people who read SAR are almost all potential customers for us, and this is what we strive for when we advertise. We will continue to support SAR as we have in the past, and encourage all of our customers to do the same.

SAR: Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

PHIL: You’re welcome.

Gemtech
P.O. Box 140618
Boise, ID 83714
PH (208) 939-7222
FAX (208) 939-7804

“The long answer to explain my interest, Tom, begins back in the 1980s, when I established what I believe to be the first privately owned laboratory designed for the scientific measurement of sound suppressor performance. With a lot of help from scientists, suppressor industry leaders, and end-users from around the world, I put together the equipment and a testing regimen that could provide a scientific comparison of competing suppressor designs. The net result of subsequent research that has been conducted over the years is that end-users are no longer satisfied with subjective platitudes like ‘that silencer was real quiet’ or ‘it sounded like a Mercedes door closing’ or ‘the report was just a loud cough.’ Now, for better or worse, people want numbers. They want to know the suppressed sound signature and the net sound reduction produced by a silenced firearm.

“That’s good. In fact, that has been my goal from the very beginning: to provide objective scientific data akin to accuracy testing of firearms, what a scientist would term ‘hard data’ based upon repeatable experiments. Both manufacturers and end-users now have an objective methodology for comparing silencers. Today, manufacturers and even a number of military end-users around the world use the methodology I developed and popularized.

“But I may have created a monster. I’ve continually pointed out since the beginning of this quest that there are a lot of other factors in a silencer’s performance equation besides decibels. The amount of length and weight a suppressor adds to a firearm are critical factors for both tactical and sporting applications of silenced firearms. Diameter is crucial if one must use factory iron sights. Additional factors that may be critically important in the decision to purchase and deploy a given silencer design include: compatibility with a wide variety of ammunition, reliability of the parent weapon when a given silencer is attached, positive or negative effects on accuracy, durability, service life, maintenance requirements, purchase price, life cycle cost analysis, user-friendliness, and availability to a given category of end-user. For the private collector, pride of ownership is also a significant factor in the selection of a sound suppressor, and people tell me your CAC line of suppressors engenders that pride of ownership.”

The conversation went on for more than an hour, with Tom agreeing to loan me one of each caliber CAC suppressor for evaluation. The only potential fly in the proverbial ointment was that Craig Wheatley at Tactical Innovations Inc. was so impressed by the CAC 45 suppressor that he purchased the entire production run of CAC 45s for resale. So I arranged to borrow a specimen from a gracious Mr. Wheatley for this study.

The Bowers CAC .45 suppressor, like all CAC variants, is made from 1.75 inch aluminum tubing. This standardization, plus the fact that Bowers bought a third of a mile of tubing, was a major factor in keeping the retail price of standard CAC cans to $295. So was the fact that the aluminum frusto-conical baffles were mass produced in house on a Hardinge CNC turning center in such quantities that Bowers had two 55 gallon drums full baffles after his 9mm production run. Like its 9x19mm sibling, the CAC 45 is 11.25 inches long. It weighs 19.2 ounces. The suppressor can be disassembled for cleaning or maintenance, which is a warm fuzzy for many private collectors. The front end cap of the CAC 45 suppressor features extra spanner holes in a circular pattern similar to the one first conceived by Tim Bixler of SCRC, providing extra holes should the first pair become damaged over the years during disassembly. A spanner is not provided with the Bowers suppressor, however, in an effort to keep the price down. Normal cleaning can be accomplished by immersion in a suitable solvent such as mineral spirits or Varsol, so disassembly should not be required. It is also noteworthy that Bowers offers a lifetime warranty on the baffle stack.

Between the clearly robust, business-like construction, especially nice black anodized finish, and particularly handsome laser engraving, the Bowers CAC 45 sound suppressor exudes the gravitas of a serious working tool and the workmanship worthy of the demanding collector, at a bargain price.

So far so good. How does it perform? I examined the performance of the Bowers CAC 45 on an Ingram M10 submachine gun manufactured by RPB, using Black Hills 230 grain FMJ ammunition. Black Hills ammunition is noteworthy for its quality, accuracy and consistency, and it has become my reference standard in all available calibers for testing and evaluation. I also use Black Hills ammunition for my personal concealed carry handguns.

I compared the CAC 45’s performance to a Cobray M10 suppressor that was retrofitted in the late 1980s with a baffle kit from one of the major manufacturers. The kit replaced WerBell’s spiral diffusers and wipe with stamped baffles and spacers, and a reflective front end cap. This retrofitted M10 suppressor has an overall length of 11.5 inches and a weight of 27.2 ounces. The suppressor’s rear tube has a diameter of 2.22 inches, while the front tube has a diameter of 1.75 inches. The reflective front end cap has a bore of 0.57 inch, while the CAC 45 has a bore of 0.54 inch.

The retrofitted M10 eliminates the wipe with its need for periodic replacement, it provides better accuracy, and provides 1 dB better sound reduction. The only downside is that the sound signature seems harsher because there is a hard uncorking component to the sound, while the original WerBell design has a longer and softer sound that is actually more pleasing to the ear. Furthermore, the original WerBell’s softer sound signature seems less like a sound one might have to worry about.

I compared these two traditional suppressors for the Ingram M10 with the Bowers CAC 45, measuring the sound pressure levels (SPLs) in two locations: (1) 1.00 meter to the left of the muzzle or front of the sound suppressor, as appropriate, and (2) at the shooter’s left ear. Details on the testing regimen can be found in Chapter 5 of Volume 1, Silencer History and Performance. The mean (average) sound signatures appear in Table 1 and the net sound reductions appear in Table 2, confirming several suspicions I’ve kept to myself until this point in the discussion. The first is that .45 caliber submachine guns are hard to suppress. The second is that the CAC design seems really optimized for 9mm cartridges; I’d expect double the sound reduction out of the 9mm variant.

Looking Beyond the Decibels

What the numbers don’t show is the profound difference in subjective performance between the Bowers CAC 45 and the Cobray M10 retrofitted with baffles. The Cobray silencer produced a high-pitched, sharp uncorking sound. The Bowers CAC 45 produced a soft, low-pitch, relatively long depressurizing sigh that makes the CAC 45 much more comfortable to shoot than the sound pressure levels might suggest, since a significant portion of the sound energy seems to be below the frequency of peak hearing sensitivity in humans.

The sound pressure level at the shooter’s ear is 1 dB over the European Risk Limit for hearing loss from impulse sound and is equal to the pain threshold for impulse sound. The rule of thumb is that if a sound hurts, it is already above the safe limit. Yet shooting the CAC 45 did not hurt, presumably because the can shifts much of the sound energy to below the peak sensitivity of the human ear. Therefore, the amount of sound suppression is probably enough to safeguard the operator’s hearing, and it will certainly be safe for someone an armspan behind the shooter’s ear.

The Bowers CAC 45 also proved much better at recoil reduction during full-auto fire than the Cobray M10 retrofit, providing significantly better hit probability. The Bowers CAC also delivered much better accuracy at 25 yards with semiautomatic fire, producing an average of 2.70 inch groups, while the M10 retrofit delivered an average of 3.81 inch groups. That’s just part of the Bowers accuracy advantage. At 25 yards, the Bowers groups centered an average of 2.6 inches from the point of aim up and to the right to the 1 o’clock position, while the M10 retrofit groups centered an average of 4.3 inches to the 1 o’clock position. Thus, the Bowers CAC 45 provided a 29 percent advantage in terms of group size and a 40 percent advantage in terms of shot placement over the M10 retrofit, which is itself significantly more accurate than an M10 with fresh wipe. This adds up to about a 70 percent increase in accuracy or effective range when using the CAC 45 compared to the Cobray M10 with baffle retrofit kit. Since the point of shooting, whether one is a sport shooter or an armed professional, is hitting the target, the big news for me personally is how well the Bowers CAC 45 improves accuracy over the traditional competition.

Final Thoughts

So what’s the bottom line here? Tom Bowers had the goal of producing suppressors for submachine guns of Ingram heritage that provide just enough suppression, maximum durability, and minimum price. He succeeded admirably. The Bowers CAC 45 sound suppressor provides an especially nice black anodized finish and particularly handsome laser engraving that will provide the pride of ownership demanded by the serious collector. The CAC 45 also features the robust, business-like construction required of a working tool. The suppressor seems to generate enough frequency shift to not only create a pleasing sound signature, but also to just barely safeguard the operator from short-term and long-term hearing loss. The CAC 45 suppressor also delivers significantly better accuracy and effective range than Mitch WerBell’s M10 sound suppressor, whether or not the M10 is fitted with a baffle retrofit kit. Furthermore, the CAC 45 is a half-pound lighter than the upgraded M10.

Finally the bottom line to the bottom line ain’t bad either: this is a lot of silencer for $295 retail. Clearly, decibels aren’t always the whole story. That’s an important lesson. The late astronomer Carl Sagan would have called that a Big Truth. After this enlightening study, I’ve purchased a Bowers CAC 45 myself, and I plan to retire my M10 retrofit. That is the highest recommendation I can possibly make for the Bowers CAC 45.

To buy a Bowers CAC 45 suppressor, or a new or used MAC submachine gun, contact Craig Wheatley at Tactical Innovations Inc., Dept. SAR, 108 Holsum Way #D7, Glen Burnie, MD 21060; phone 410-760-3609; website www.tacticalinc.com/. For information on other Bowers suppressors, check out Tom Bowers’ website at www.subguns .com or go directly to his suppressor page at Bowers, P.O. Box 430, Cornelius, OR 97113; e-mail subguns@subguns.com; website www.subguns.com/products/cans. I’ll continue to report on the other suppressors in the Bowers line at the earliest opportunities. If your local retailer does not stock Black Hills ammunition, you can purchase it directly from Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090; phone 605-348-5150; fax 605-348-9827; website www.black-hills.com.

NEW LASERMAX INTERNAL LASER SIGHT FOR BERETTA VERTEC

Owners of new Beretta 92/96 VERTEC handguns can now enjoy the benefits of LaserMax totally integrated laser sights. According to LaserMax, its LMS-1441 is a perfect fit in the new gun model, which has a shorter trigger reach and a thinner, slimmer grip, which is useful for shooters with small hands. The laser sight adds less than a quarter-ounce to the weight of the gun, and with no external parts, your favorite grips as well as a standard holster can be used. The LaserMax sight is inside the gun, close to the barrel, to ensure accurate sighting. Unlike external lasers, the LaserMax cannot be bumped or jarred out of alignment. Surefire or other accessory lights can still be mounted on the VERTEC rail and removed as the situation dictates. A removable light and the robust internal LaserMax sight make a perfect combination for low-light tactical situations. The pulsating laser beam increases accuracy and improves aiming speed by revealing the point of aim, which is in line with the gun barrel. As a law enforcement tool, the laser’s red dot has been proven to reduce assailant aggression. The LaserMax sight can be user installed in five minutes or less simply by field stripping the gun and dropping the laser sight in, in place of the original recoil spring guide assembly. After installing the new takedown lever with its integral on-off switch, the gun is reassembled and then sight is ready to use. No gunsmithing is needed. The new LaserMax sight has an ambidextrous switch that is easily and comfortably activated with either hand. This activates the highly visible, pulsating laser beam that is emitted directly below the gun barrel. Each LaserMax sight is factory aligned and carries a three-year warranty on all but its expendable parts. For more information contact LaserMax, Inc., Dept. SAR, 3495 Winton Place, Bldg. B, Rochester, NY 14623. Telephone: 1-800-527-3703. Fax: 1-585-272-5427. Their web address is www.lasermax-inc.com.

FNH USA INTRODUCES THE F2000 COMBAT RIFLE

Extending its reputation as a worldwide leader in small arms design and manufacturing, FNH USA, Inc., a subsidiary of FN Herstal, S.A., Belgium, has now officially introduced the next generation of integrated weapons systems, the F2000(. The unique design of the F2000 is based on the concept of interchangeable modules that enable the operator to meet the varied, and often demanding, requirements of different military missions as well as law enforcement requirements. Ergonomically designed, the F2000 allows accessories and modules to be added while keeping its balance and smooth design lines. Chambered in 5.56 X 45 mm, the F2000 is the only ambidextrous “bull pup” rifle with a full-length barrel, yet is fully balanced, lightweight and compact. The F2000 can be comfortably used left-handed without any modifications, and because the weapon features forward ejection, the left-handed operator is not at risk from empty cases, gases or debris. Additionally, the safety and firing selector as well as the magazine catch are all easy to manipulate left-handed. Unlike traditional rifles, the unique design of the F2000 pistol grip allows firing of the rifle or grenade launcher with minimal movement of the firing hand. The grenade launcher is one of the several integrated accessories for the new rifle. The F2000 weapon system also boasts add-on features such as the integrated light and laser or fire control systems. The F2000 weighs less than 8 pounds and has an overall length of just over 27 inches. The gun features a 15.75 inch barrel and uses M-16 type magazines. For more information on this revolutionary new rifle contact FNH USA Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 697, McLean, VA 22101. Phone: 1-703-288-1297. Fax: 1-703-288-1730. Website: www.fnherstal.com.

BLACK HILLS GOLD AMMUNITION

Black Hills Ammunition has introduced a new line of premium performance rifle ammunition. Calibers available in the Black Hills Gold Line are .243, .270, .308, .30-06 and .300 Win Mag. This new line of ammo is designed for top performance in a wide range of hunting situations. Bullets used in this new ammunition are the Barnes X-Bullet with XLC coating and the highly accurate Nosler Ballistic-Tip(. The Gold Line is packaged 20 rounds per box, 10 boxes per case. For more information contact Black Hills Ammunition, Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709. Phone: 1-605-348-5150. Fax: 1-605-348-9827. Their website is www.black-hills.com.

Gemtech’s Mossad suppressor blends gracefully with the lines and proportions of the Uzi. Part of the reason is that the rear of the can duplicates the design of the Uzi’s barrel nut, so installation couldn’t be easier or more positive: simply remove the barrel nut and replace it with the sound suppressor. Part of the reason is that the suppressor extends back over the barrel to the receiver, which minimizes overall system length. And part of the reason is that the can is so light that it neither inhibits the speed of target acquisition nor adds to shooter fatigue. Clearly, such graceful integration with the weapon has significant functional as well as aesthetic merit.

Manufactured from precision CNC machined high tensile strength aluminum alloys, the Mossad has an overall length of 11.5 inches, a diameter of 1.38 inches, and a weight of just 12.5 ounces. Mounting the suppressor is very quick and requires no modification of the weapon. Simply remove the barrel nut and replace with the suppressor, which is locked into place by the spring-loaded barrel nut retention latch that engages the slanted teeth on the rear of the suppressor mount. This makes the Gemtech suppressors much safer to use than cans that simply screw onto a threaded barrel.

Performance

I tested the performance of Gemtech’s Mossad suppressor on a Group Industries clone of the Uzi submachine gun fitted with an FN bolt, using a variety of Black Hills Ammunition including 115 grain RN FMJ, 147 grain flat point FMJ subsonic, and a new specially designed submachine gun subsonic round that features a 147 grain round nose FMJ projectile. The standard 9x19mm subsonic round found in the Black Hills catalog features a flat point projectile with velocity optimized for pistols. This makes perfect sense because the vast majority of customers buying 147 grain ammo are agencies using the FMJ subsonic round as an affordable, ballistically equivalent training load to 147 grain hollowpoint duty ammo used in their pistols. This FP ammo is not desirable for use in submachine guns for several reasons. Since submachine guns have greater barrel lengths than pistols, conventional Black Hills subsonic ammo frequently generates a loud ballistic crack in subguns, negating the value of adding a silencer to the weapon if stealth is the goal. Furthermore, FP or HP ammo doesn’t feed reliably in weapons that feed like Ingrams and Uzis because of the abrupt feed ramps found in these submachine guns.

The new subgun ammo from Black Hills features a round nose for reliable feeding and a slower velocity for effective suppression in submachine guns over a more practical range of temperatures and barrel lengths. This new RN subsonic is not found in Black Hills literature but is being made available as a special service, and must be ordered directly from Jeff Hoffman, the president of Black Hills Ammunition. It is in stock as this was being written. This 147 grain RN FMJ ammo is highly recommended for all silenced submachine guns. (Contact Jeff Hoffman, Black Hills Ammunition, Inc., Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 3090, Rapid City, SD 57709-3090; phone 605-348-5150; fax 605-348-9827; URL http://www.black-hills.com).

I used a single lot of G&L 147 grain FMJ subsonic ammo for benchmark sound testing for much of the 1990s. It proved ideally suited for use in suppressed submachine guns in terms of projectile velocity, accuracy, reliable weapon function, and gracefulness when fired with a sound suppressor. This G&L round also works well in pistols. G&L ammunition is no longer available. Therefore, I began using the new Black Hills 147 grain RN FMJ as my subsonic 9x19mm reference standard when it became available in 1999. So that we all can get a feel for comparing recent with older research, this study provides comparative data using both the G&L and Black Hills subsonic 9x19mm ammo. Finally, I tested the Mossad with Israeli Samson 158 grain subsonic ammunition, which is used by the Brits for CT (counter-terrorist) operations and is imported into the States by Cole Distributing, Inc. (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 50271, Bowling Green, Kentucky 42102; phone 270-622-3569; fax 270-622-3757; URL http://www.cole-distributing.com/).

The first thing that impressed me during the course of the testing was that the Mossad eliminated muzzle flash and muzzle climb, and it cut felt recoil in half. Furthermore, I was gratified that the suppressor never loosened during the course of the testing, unlike some suppressors that I’ve screwed directly onto threaded Uzi barrels. I was quite pleased with the satisfying sound signatures produced by the Mossad with both vintage G&L subsonic as well as the new 147 grain RN FMJ submachine gun round from Black Hills Ammunition. I was flabbergasted when I used the formidable 158 grain +P+ Samson subsonic round, for I would never have expected this much suppression from a compact muzzle can on an open-bolt gun. Clearly the advanced baffle design likes the ultra-fast powder of the Samson fodder, for this round produced far and away the quietest sound signatures (see Table 1) and the best net sound reduction (see Table 2). In fact, using the powerful Samson fodder made the Uzi with Mossad quieter than the venerable MP5SD. It is safe to say that this is outstanding performance.

Why was the Gemtech silencer the quietest with the most powerful round? The answer relates to the nature of the silencer’s design. The internal baffle structures use asymmetric surfaces to direct gas flow away from the central core of the silencer and other structures to increase turbulence. All of this is pressure driven. The higher velocity gases produced by the Samson round actually enable the structures inside the Mossad to work more efficiently.

It is also noteworthy that the Mossad dropped the SPL of supersonic ammo to well below the international safety limit of 140 dB, above which hearing damage is likely when a person is subjected to impulse sound while not wearing a hearing protection device. There are certain tactical applications, such as the anticipation of opponents wearing aramid fiber body armor, where the more slender supersonic projectiles make more tactical sense than subsonic rounds.

Final Thoughts

All of these numbers are interesting, but what do they mean in the real world? In order to see just how stealthy Gemtech’s Mossad could be in the real world, I fired a pair of Samson 158 grain FMJ rounds into the ground followed by a pair of BH 147 grain RN FMJ rounds with the selector set to R for repetition (i.e., semiautomatic), while my wife and teenager were watching TV inside a house of standard frame construction. I was three armspans outside of the back door, and they were three armspans inside. Neither lady heard a thing, so I’d say that the Mossad is sufficiently stealthy for missions faced by the armed professional in the real world or by the private individual who is simply interested in some sport shooting without disturbing the neighbors.

Gemtech’s Mossad suppressor blends gracefully with the lines and proportions of the Uzi because it was designed expressly for this weapon. Its very light weight enables rapid target acquisition. The sophisticated baffle stack delivers plenty of sound suppression and outstanding service life. By selecting the right ammunition, the Mossad can make the open-bolt Uzi quieter than HK’s impressive closed-bolt MP5SD, while delivering a much heavier projectile at a much greater velocity. The Mossad virtually eliminates muzzle flash and climb, and cuts felt recoil in half. This sophisticated suite of outstanding features makes the Uzi an effective and stealthy tool for the modern tactical and sporting environments. I can recommend Gemtech’s Mossad sound suppressor with enthusiasm.

For more information on suppressors, contact Gemtech (Dept. SAR, P.O. Box 140618, Boise, ID 83714-0618; phone 208-939-7222; fax 208-939-7804; URL http://www.gem-tech.com).