# Would "BLACK POWDER" reduce the sound, all things equal.....???



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

*Would "BLACK POWDER" reduce the sound, all things equal.....??? *

For example, say the cartridge is 45/70 and the firearm is very strong and modern, maybe a RUGER #1. Given the same weight bullet, let's say 450 grain, and let's say we dialed-in two loads, one going 975 fps using some type of black powder. The other also going 975 fps using 4350 or 4831 or some slow powder. Both are sub-sonic.

Would the sound be less with the black powder load........???​


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

I've hunted for years during muzzleloader season...'tis louder than a Civil War in the deer woods then!

My own muzzleloader is pretty danged loud. CVA 45 calibler.


.


----------



## vicker (Jul 11, 2003)

The answer to your question is no.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

OK........why.....??? Or why is the smokeless propellant quieter.........???




vicker said:


> The answer to your question is no.


----------



## TnAndy (Sep 15, 2005)

There might be a few decibels difference one way or the other...but I doubt the human ear could tell much difference.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Sourdough said:


> OK........why.....??? Or why is the smokeless propellant quieter.........???


 IMHO

In the example you gave I think neither would be quieter. The sound would be more related to pressure than the type of powder. To push the bullet out at the same FPS would require the same pressure from each. 

How much sound does the powder make if you burn it? not much. It's only when you enclose it in a case so the pressure can raise do you get the bang.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

So if I could bleed off 100% of the gas before the projectile departs the muzzle, and the pressure behind the projectile was exactly equal to the external barrel, and if said projectile departed sub-sonic, then there should be very little or zero sound.........YES or NO.......???​


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Sour,

In a classroom physics problem as you have described, you could reduce the sound to just the sound of the bullet moving through the air, and the click of the lock. However, for a number of reasons, this doesn't work in the real world, regardless of the type of powder used. For example, in order to equalize the pressure of the exploding powder to air pressure would require a vacuum evacuated bleed off and slowing chamber for the explosion gases that trapped all of the gasses. To do this perfectly would require a chamber larger than the gun (by a fair bit,) which would render the gun functionally immobile. This slowing of gas would also be accompanied by a slowing of the bullet due to friction and a lack of driving pressure behind it in the barrel past the bleed off port for the gasses.

Long story short, You have a few options; you can extend the length of the barrel to reduce some of the sound impulse (not much reduction), you can pay the $200 dollar tax stamp for a silencer (decent reduction), or you can buy a good pair of sound dampening ear muffs (most felt reduction).

Loki


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

My interest in this is having a firearm that makes a in-distinguishable noise. My thinking was/is that a muffled sound would be harder to pinpoint. Yes, this is mostly a mind game for post apocalypses covert hunting.

My rough idea was having several gas blocks and venting them into a rubber bladder, like a hot water bottle.

For my application it does not need to be quiet as much a muted and the sound spread over a longer period, as opposed to the sharp crack of a high velocity rifle.

My first project along this line will be starting with a H&R 1871 fully rifled 12 ga. with the longest barrel I can find, hopefully at least 30". I will start with the "AGUILA" Minishells in slugs. If I find that the sound is more than I can live with, I will start drilling 1/32" dia. holes, starting about 10" from the muzzle, and keep adding holes till I get the acceptable result.

I would like to thank everyone for their input.......


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Sourdough,

I think you will not have fantastic results. Venting the barrel will disperse the sound some, but not enough to really render the noise non-directional if you want very quiet hunting for covert purposes, a good modern crossbow might be an cheapish alternative.

Loki


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Not if your 86 y/o and shooting at a animal 125 yards away. If I can equalize the pressure just before the projectile departs, there will be no sound. And, I besides I live in the middle of nowhere, and only see a human every few weeks.




hoddedloki said:


> Sourdough,
> 
> I think you will not have fantastic results. Venting the barrel will disperse the sound some, but not enough to really render the noise non-directional if you want very quiet hunting for covert purposes, a good modern crossbow might be an cheapish alternative.
> 
> Loki


----------



## CajunSunshine (Apr 24, 2007)

I know conventional magna porting (cutting out holes in) the barrel would certainly reduce the recoil, but not the sound.




.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

burn speed has a lot to do with it 

if you want quite you have to have the barrel volume to burn the charge , this is sort of how suppressors work they add barrel volume 

I have a 6, 18 , 21 , and 26 inch barreled 22lr the same round gets noticeably quieter in each longer barrel with the 26 being the quietest 

I played with quiet in a 30-06 bolt action rifle with a 24 inch barrel loading 170 gr cast bullets 
the fast pistol/shotgun powders worked the best one must be very careful with these as you could charge the case 10 time over or more 

what you basically want is a 45lc cowboy load from a long barreled rifle you will get your heavy cast bullet to 950 fps with very light recoil and about as light of a report as your can get this will not be a long range round but should be able to take game at short distance with good shot placement


something else with black powder loading is that every load needs to be a compressed load filling the case volume , you can use corn meal or cream of wheat to fill the rest of the case on light charges but this must be added to the projectile weight for calculations 

fast burning smokeless does not require you fill the case 

here is some reading on the Ed Harris "the load" and reduced loading for service cartridge rifles


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> My interest in this is having a firearm that makes a in-distinguishable noise. My thinking was/is that a muffled sound would be harder to pinpoint. Yes, this is mostly a mind game for post apocalypses covert hunting.


You asked this same thing once before a while back.

You're not going to find any type of gun that will do what you want without generating a high level of sound. 

If you want "covert hunting" get a crossbow


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Well it can be done. I have this same question up on (4) four forums. And, not only can it be done it "HAS" been done.





Bearfootfarm said:


> You asked this same thing once before a while back.
> 
> You're not going to find any type of gun that will do what you want without generating a high level of sound.
> 
> If you want "covert hunting" get a crossbow


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Yes, I have .22 rimfire firearms from 2 1/2" revolver up to 28.6" CZ-Ultra LUX. And many years ago I had Mauser .22 Rimfire Military Training Rifle with a 29.5" barrel.

What you get with a longer barrel is a sound report that is equal to a suppressor. Or depending on the size of the suppressor , you can get an even more sound suppressed report than a suppressor will give.

Yes, I shoot the .45 Long Colt Cowboy loads in my Winchester Model 92 Rifle and in My H&R Survivor Rifle.





GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> burn speed has a lot to do with it
> 
> if you want quite you have to have the barrel volume to burn the charge , this is sort of how suppressors work they add barrel volume
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> Well it can be done. I have this same question up on (4) four forums. And, not only can it be done it "HAS" been done.


I'm sure someone on the internet has *told* you they did it.
Physics says it's not likely


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Well, good to know that all gas operated firearms say you be wrong. Note: that they bleed off gas and the bullet does NOT stop in front of the gas block.




Bearfootfarm said:


> I'm sure someone on the internet has *told* you they did it.
> Physics says it's not likely


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> Well, good to know that all gas operated firearms say you be wrong. Note: that they bleed off gas and the bullet does NOT stop in front of the gas block.


I think you're confused since I never said anything about bullets stopping
We were talking about noise levels
Gas operated firearms only use a negligible amount of gas to cycle the actions.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

They make different size gas blocks and they make "ADJUSTABLE" gas blocks, so at what point is it Not....."NEGLIGIBLE".......????

And if you had (8) eight gas blocks you could bleed off a lot of gas.....maybe all of the gas.




Bearfootfarm said:


> Gas operated firearms only use a negligible amount of gas to cycle the actions.


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

I am interested to see it when you have it done , a video please


----------



## FarmboyBill (Aug 19, 2005)

Nope my 36s and my 50 sound about the same, like a double barreled shotgun with both barrels fired./


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> They make different size gas blocks and they make "ADJUSTABLE" gas blocks, so at what point is it Not....."NEGLIGIBLE".......????
> 
> And if you had (8) eight gas blocks you could bleed off a lot of gas.....maybe all of the gas.


It never rises above that point since too much would destroy the weapon

All the gas "bleeds off" eventually, but you're not being realistic at all.
A suppressor bleeds off all the gas, and that's the only way to reduce the sound of a firearm

These are all the same answers you got in the last thread on this subject months ago

How about a link to the proof you have that shows it can be done without using a suppressor?


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

I have a far better idea..........where-as my goal is to learn, and your goal is to "WIN" this discussion. I will keep that information from you as I see no value to me in giving it to you. However I will give you this because it has no value to me........"YOU WIN". I posted this question on four different forums, and got the information I needed elsewhere. So I win, and you win. (......it was build by the U.S. ARMY during WWII, it was cheap to build, and it worked).




Bearfootfarm said:


> How about a link to the proof you have that shows it can be done without using a suppressor?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> I have a far better idea..........where-as my goal is to learn, and your goal is to "WIN" this discussion. I will keep that information from you as I see no value to me in giving it to you. However I will give you this because it has no value to me........"YOU WIN". I posted this question on four different forums, and got the information I needed elsewhere. So I win, and you win. (......it was build by the U.S. ARMY during WWII, it was cheap to build, and it worked).


So this thread turned out exactly like the first in that you asked lots of questions, everyone told you pretty much the same thing, and then you said you knew everything already
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...-wanted-big-game-quietest-non-suppressed.html


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

if you're worried about noise, from an OP-SEC POV in a TEOTW scenario, might be nice to have a few oil filter adapters lying around the house. And, extra oil filters. I hear you can still pick up the oil filter adapters on Amazon.

Go with subsonic rounds, and your noise footprint with one of these would be negligible...

I'd not think about playing with them, while the powers that be exist....


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

...........deleted...........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Not surprisingly, all the answers on the other forums were pretty much identical to the ones given here, with the general consensus being it's not possible to reduce the sound without using a suppressor.

*Any* "device" that "bleeds off pressure to reduce sound" on *any* firearm is an NFA controlled item.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not surprisingly, all the answers on the other forums were pretty much identical to the ones given here, with the general consensus being it's not possible to reduce the sound without using a suppressor.
> 
> *Any* "device" that "bleeds off pressure to reduce sound" on *any* firearm is an NFA controlled item.


and thus, the reason to never have a suppressor, without having an NFA tax stamp in hand.... of course, there 'are' products, one can buy legally, and possess, and be cool with the law, as long as it weren't attached to a firearm....

Thinking, if things go south, few agents would be around to check and see if legally owned things were illegally attached to one's gun.

One can actually buy them on Amazon...


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

I have solved this.......totally and legally. It has taken several years of research. The answer was always right there, just had to be able to see it. To be able to see the solution required clear identification of the problem, then blocking all known existing solutions. And viewing it from a 90 degree angle.




texican said:


> and thus, the reason to never have a suppressor, without having an NFA tax stamp in hand....


----------



## GREENCOUNTYPETE (Jul 25, 2006)

and the solution is ?


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Not for dissemination..............



GREENCOUNTYPETE said:


> and the solution is ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Unless the laws of physics have changed, it has to be some sort of "suppressor" by definition.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

One of the problems in this quest........was getting disinformation from several people, who repeatedly insist they are correct, when it turns out that they are "WRONG". At least now I know the truth, and that truth proves that you and several others are wrong. (About this subject, however I have enjoyed your posts on other subjects, which I consider to be valid information, your just incorrect in your strongly held beliefs on this subject.)



Bearfootfarm said:


> Unless the laws of physics have changed, it has to be some sort of "suppressor" by definition.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> One of the problems in this quest........was getting disinformation from several people, who repeatedly insist they are correct, when it turns out that *they are "WRONG"*. At least now I know the truth, and that truth proves that you and several others are wrong. (About this subject, however I have enjoyed your posts on other subjects, which I consider to be valid information, your just incorrect in your strongly held beliefs on this subject.)


Everyone told you the same things, and it seems you have nothing to offer in way of proving they were incorrect.

I guess we'll never know


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

That is a total incorrect statement..............You think, or you want to believe that "Everyone" told me the same as you. That enables you to smugly assume you are correct..........However, Everyone did NOT tell me the same B.S. But you are correct that most of you did..........you all drank the same kool'aid. That, however in the end is your problem, and not mine.

If you ever take a course in "Basic Logic" 101, (Which I did at RIT in 66') then you will learn that statements like, "Everyone told you the same thing" is what is called, "Band-wagon" Logic. It is a fake method, with zero foundation having been established, of attempting to fabricate, "Well, We all know "X" and we all agree, and we are all on the "Bandwagon" therefore it must be valid". 



Bearfootfarm said:


> Everyone told you the same thing...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> That is a total incorrect statement..............You think, or you want to believe that "Everyone" told me the same as you. That enables you to smugly assume you are correct..........However, Everyone did NOT tell me the same B.S. But you are correct that most of you did..........you all drank the same kool'aid. That, however in the end is your problem, and not mine.


I read all the threads where you posted the exact same questions, and got the same answers. 

If you don't want to share how it was done, that's your choice, but to claim you did it then offer nothing just seems a little lame.


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Again with the "BANDWAGON LOGIC".......(https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=bandwagon+logical+fallacy&ei=UTF-8&fr=chrf-yff32)

Suggest that you list all of the (4) FOUR different FORUMS where-in I asked different questions on this subject over the last two and a half years.

Me thinks you have zero idea what you are babbling about. As the saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, attempt to baffle them with BULL-SPIT" or defective "Bandwagon Logic".........:thumb:

Note:........I offered you a opportunity to save-face, and back out of this with some dignity in POST#24 it appears that you were still high on the kool-aid and declined.........clearly a mistake.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I read all the threads where you posted the exact same questions, and got the same answers.......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Suggest that you *list all of the (4) FOUR different FORUMS* where-in I asked different questions on this subject over the last two and a half years.
> 
> *Me thinks you have zero idea what you are babbling about.* As the saying goes, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, attempt to baffle them with BULL-SPIT" or defective "Bandwagon Logic".........


I wouldn't have said it if it weren't true:

1. http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=8636745

2. http://forums.outdoorsdirectory.com...POWDER-quot-reduce-the-sound-all-things-equal

3. http://68forums.com/forums/printthread.php?t=60304&pp=10

I don't think you need a link to this forum but you have 2 threads on the same topic, counting this one too:

4. http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/sp...-wanted-big-game-quietest-non-suppressed.html


----------



## Sourdough (Dec 28, 2011)

Good........Now study the information that they contain.





Bearfootfarm said:


> I wouldn't have said it if it weren't true:
> 
> 1. http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?p=8636745
> 
> ...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Sourdough said:


> Good........Now study the information that they contain.


There's no point in that since they are pretty much identical to this one, as I said before.

There's no new information at all


----------

