I wrote the piece on silencers and if you read it closely, its says that a reduction of sound to the "fut" heard in movies can be done with "a very well designed and precision made silencer using subsonic ammunition".
Footnote #4 does say that "in theory" subsonic ammunition is available for the 7.62 Nato rifle and that it would offer no significant advantage over subsonic handgun ammunition. My point: why would an assassin lug around a large sniper rifle if he could do essentially the same job with a more concealable weapon. I will happily remove the words "in theory", but the facts remain; a subsonic rifle bullet will have a significant loss of range and kinetic energy compared to a supersonic bullet. It also may not function properly in autoloading rifles.
As for fact finding, I have read patents, every web site on silencers I could find, and at least one book on the subject as well as observed a well-made silencer being fired. I've had numerous discussions, both face to face and via e-mail with SWAT team members and silencer owners. I personally tested the Coke bottle silencer with 3 different types of ammunition. I have read articles on hand loading data that advised against trying to load subsonic 7.62 NATO rounds because normal rifle powder can break up into a smaller grain size and detonate if the cartridge has excess empty space in it from the reduced powder load needed for subsonic performance. Although I could have used better wording in my footnote, the site's content is based on a lot of research.
I wrote the piece on lasers and flashing bullets and yes I really did ask myself "if it would make the movie any better if the lasers weren't visible or you couldn't see the [bullet] impacts [by using bright pyrotectic flashes]". I would answer with a question: how can a visual cliché possibly serve the art of movie making any better than a verbal cliché serve the art of literature? In the case of brightly flashing bullet impacts it's not like movies have no alternative. Saving Private Ryan and the mini series Band of Brothers both managed to depict realistic bullet strikes without all the bright flashes and yet had no loss of drama.
I would further ask: does the repetition of visual clichés to an audience with no other source of information lead to clear thinking? Call me a nitpicker, but I think people, especially young people need to develop some skepticism if they are to see the world clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
I wrote the piece on silencers and if you read it closely, its says that a reduction of sound to the "fut" heard in movies can be done with "a very well designed and precision made silencer using subsonic ammunition". Footnote #4 does say that "in theory" subsonic ammunition is available for the 7.62 Nato rifle and that it would offer no significant advantage over subsonic handgun ammunition. My point: why would an assassin lug around a large sniper rifle if he could do essentially the same job with a more concealable weapon. I will happily remove the words "in theory", but the facts remain; a subsonic rifle bullet will have a significant loss of range and kinetic energy compared to a supersonic bullet. It also may not function properly in autoloading rifles. As for fact finding, I have read patents, every web site on silencers I could find, and at least one book on the subject as well as observed a well-made silencer being fired. I've had numerous discussions, both face to face and via e-mail with SWAT team members and silencer owners. I personally tested the Coke bottle silencer with 3 different types of ammunition. I have read articles on hand loading data that advised against trying to load subsonic 7.62 NATO rounds because normal rifle powder can break up into a smaller grain size and detonate if the cartridge has excess empty space in it from the reduced powder load needed for subsonic performance. Although I could have used better wording in my footnote, the site's content is based on a lot of research.
I wrote the piece on lasers and flashing bullets and yes I really did ask myself "if it would make the movie any better if the lasers weren't visible or you couldn't see the [bullet] impacts [by using bright pyrotectic flashes]". I would answer with a question: how can a visual cliché possibly serve the art of movie making any better than a verbal cliché serve the art of literature? In the case of brightly flashing bullet impacts it's not like movies have no alternative. Saving Private Ryan and the mini series Band of Brothers both managed to depict realistic bullet strikes without all the bright flashes and yet had no loss of drama. I would further ask: does the repetition of visual clichés to an audience with no other source of information lead to clear thinking? Call me a nitpicker, but I think people, especially young people need to develop some skepticism if they are to see the world clearly.