This rifle was apparently, only used up to about 100 feet. The shots after that, were obviously unsuppressed and enormously louder.
What rifle? It remains a figment of your imagination until you can point to it.
Well, some suspicions are better than others. I think that if a teenager or an Alabama redneck can do it, pretty much anyone else can, who sets his mind to it.
They are making reductions to muzzle noise; they're not making those guns anywhere near silent.
No, I can't prove that and I don't intend to try.
Then you are wasting your time here.
Sorry, I didn't get the make and model, but yes, there is plenty of evidence it existed.
Sounds lke there is zero evidence it existed. Try harder.
A low caliber, suppressed weapon is the only plausible explanation for the shots at 150-160 and 223, since only one of them was even audible to most witnesses and neither were able to generate the kind of startle reactions we see, following the shots at 285 and 313.
Tell me again what extensive experience you have with suppressed firearms aimed/fired past you so that you can be aware of what they sound like?
I won't say "totally", but it's close. Move the timer to about 1:25.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haiqFcIXTqs
Surely you understand that recording gunfire on a camcorder, compressing it with mpeg or flv formatting then playing it back on a computer completely crushes any realism with respect to sound reproduction. If you wanted realistic sound reproduction then you would have to start with a microphone with a minimum 20 micro-second response time to pick up the noise and finish with headphones or speakers capable of blasting greater than 160 decibels at the ear.
Those guns are nowhere near quiet, not even close.
I will if you can give me a good reason. What specific facts did they get wrong?
Here are some. Why would you choose this article to prop up your arguments? Is it because it supported the arguments you made? Picking evidence in this fashion completely destroys what you try to prove.
Generally illegal for individuals to own in most parts of the world,
False, in fact never illegal in the USA.
Silencers that fire regular supersonic ammunition are only a little quieter than those without suppressors.
A good silencer that reduces sound by 30 decibels makes the gun much less noisy even if supersonic ammo is used. This is obvious to the observer standing next to the shooter. It can be much less obvious to a person watching a video on a computer with cheap speakers.
Subsonic ammunition has less power than regular ammunition, making it effective only at shorter ranges of up to 600 feet (200 meters).
The general consensus among shooters is that hitting a target with subsonic ammo becomes much harder at ranges past 200 yards due to the rainbow like trajectory of the bullet. I've had no problem hitting targets out to 550 yards with subsonic ammo. My 510 whisper using 950 grain bullets delivers 2330 ft-lbs at the muzzle and still has over 1600 ft-lbs at 600 yards as it doesn't slow down as much as a supersonic bullet.
Silencers can be attached to most firearms, but they work best as components of purpose built or modified guns.
Wrong and stupid. Almost any bolt action, single shot, lever action and most semi-autos are quite well suited for suppression. Exceptions are revolvers (except the 1895 Nagant), black powder guns and based on my experience, the M-1 carbine. Threaded muzzles are more common than ever now; this is usually all it takes to attach a silencer.
Here is a clue that the article is a very bad source of information;
Truby, J. David. Silencers, Snipers and Assassins: An Overview of Whispering Death. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press, 1972.
Not only is it out of date, some of it is just plain wrong.
Using an article like this just exposes a person's inexperience with the subject.
Ranb
