Talk:Flash suppressor

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Question

can someone cite me a source for this: "Faster-burning powder, however, produce less projectile velocity, which reduces both the accuracy and lethality of the weapon." seems to me that a faster burning powder would increase velocity, but also increase the chamber pressure, resulting in the possibility of burst brass or barrels.Qleem 01:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a pressure curve created when smokeless powder burns, and its burning rate is normally approximately proportional to pressure. A small charge of extremely fast-burning powder might completely finish combustion before the projectile exits the muzzle, as is the norm for rifles using .22 rimfire cartridges. This very severely limits performance, however, and larger charges of slower-burning powder will produce higher velocities at the same peak pressure, all else being equal. But this is more a matter of internal ballistics, which I believe has its own Wiki page, than flash suppressor design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.21 (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

Yaf, pleaese stop reverting to the previous version. The way I wrote it is neutral and accurate. Your reversion is neither. CynicalMe 07:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are neither accurate nor gramatically correct, nor do they follow the WP:NOT rules governing the avoidance of speculation in articles. Stating a state may do something in the future is not allowed under Wikipedia rules. We must stick to the facts that are verifiable. Yaf 16:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back at you. States do NOT 'retain provisions' of the federal ban, they have their own laws which are not the same. CynicalMe 16:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for example, California and New York both make statements in their state laws that these laws are in accordance with cited Federal laws. However, this reference is now to a defunct federal law. If this is not retaining provisions, I don't know what is. It is especially an issue with high capacity magazines (holding more than 10 rounds) that must be marked in some states to be for law enforcement use only, but are not required to be marked in current Federal law nor in other states. Needless to say, they are no longer being marked. Yet, this rule, too, existed previously in a Federal law that has now sunset, but to which the state law still points. Yaf 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linking the two makes it sound as if the state laws no longer apply. In addition, California's law was always more strict than the federal law. Also, I don't know of any state laws which require that mags must be marked LEO. They restrict possession, but there are no marking requirements that I know of, at least not here in CA. CynicalMe 16:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Flash Hider

I suggest moving this article to "flash hider." In my experience the term "flash hider" is much more common than "flash suppressor". Addittionally, this article seems to be confusing with the plain "suppressor" article and a name change would make them more distinct. Any opinions? --Askaggs 16:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the technically accurate term you will find in most manuals etc is "flash suppressor" though in practice the terms are used pretty interchangibly. Cloaked Dagger 05:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with suppressor

I tagged both articles mergewith. As far as I can tell, flash suppressors do not necessarily do anything for sound, and suppressors (silencers) usually reduce muzzle flash. --Christopherlin 16:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Flash suppressors and sound suppressors are fundamentally different devices, and should be described in separate articles. A See Also link would be more appropriate. Tronno 21:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other Discussions

What are those things on the end of some tank barrels (they look kinda like flash suppressors) that have transverse holes? Just wondering what their true function is. Here's a link to a pic:

http://www.d-daytanks.org.uk/images/tanks/sherman_firefly2.jpg

thank you

-Al

Answering my own question, it turns out it's a muzzle brake, which reduces recoil by venting a portion of the propellant gases sideways.

— Addressing the original article; modern (smokeless powder) firearms virtually consume the whole of the powder charge prior to the exit of the projectile from the muzzle. The incandescent particles commonly known as 'muzzle flash' are the residue of the burnt powder particles, having been heated to the chamber temperature of the firearm. Temperature is directly proportional to chamber pressure. In center fire rifles, this pressure measures on the order of 55,000 - 65,000 pounds per square inch (PSI) with a temperature in the range of 3,500 to 4,500 degrees F. ^[1]

Flash suppressors function by vibrating and essentially breaking up the particles which lose their heat more rapidly. At least, that is the explanation given in U. S. Armed Forces training manuals regarding the M14 and M16 rifles and M60 machine gun.

Touching on other subjects already mentioned, sound suppressors - silencers or mufflers - if properly constructed have the additional benefit of suppressing flash as well. By the way, the reason firearms with flash suppressors or sound suppressors show a flash in the movies is they are fired with blank ammunition. The burning characteristics of blank powder is radically different from normal canister powder, and the lack of a projectile also changes the burning characteristics.^[2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by OldManMontgomery (talk • contribs) 05:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Firearms Pressure Factors by Lloyd E. Brownell, PhD, Warren Phillips and Thomas Blackwood; ; published by Wolfe Press, Prescott, AZ for a full discussion of interior ballistics.
^ Interview with founder and genius of LeFrance Specialties, long ago in a galaxy far, far way.

Contradictory information?

From the article:

Anti-gun lobbies often attempt to depict flash suppressors incorrectly as devices which conceal the shooter from visibility by an observing party. The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence falsely describes a flash suppressor as a device which "allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night" in their "Mass Produced Mayhem" literature published in October of 2008.

Yet the first paragraph states:

This is useful from a tactical standpoint because it reduces the chance that the shooter's position will be given away . . .

Also:

...flash suppressors are designed to reduce the muzzle flash from the shooter to preserve the shooter's night vision . . . and to reduce the flash visible to the enemy.

So, would it be fair to say that a flash suppressor IS used to help remain concealed? How is the statement from the Brady Center an "incorrect" or "false" depiction? While a simplified explanation it does not seem out of line with the role a flash suppressor preforms.

If no one objects I will remove the entire section I first quoted above after a week or two. Please discuses any suggestions, objections or anything like that related to this article here and not on my talk page. Thank you. Lando242 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This does still need to be changed. The primary purbose of most flash suppressors is to disperse the flash away from the shooter's line of vision. While such dispersion could conceivably aid in concealment from certain angles, it is not of consequence in the purpose of the device. Duckbill suppressors were actually originally devised to help conceal the firer's position, not by concealing the flash but rather by reducing dust kicked up by the gasses escaping from the muzzle when the firearm is fired from a prone position. They give an additional benefit by directing the gases upward of reducing muzzle rise, acting as a sort of crude compensator. I can also state from first-hand experience that the common birdcage suppressors usually increase the overall diameter of the muzzle flash which would hardly help in concealment. The point is that the flash is only hidden (somewhat) from the firer and observers in certain directions (mostly behind the firer), not from anyone being fired at. This needs to be reflected more clearly in the article.--SEWalk (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a valid source for these statements by all means add the info to the article. It basically jives with what I was taught but I don't know of a quotable source. Lando242 (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section is still not clear, and is hampered by a lack of a valid source. Considering the regulation of such devices is significant in many jurisdictions, documentation of their true purpose would strengthen this article. The previous reference, US Army field manual 3-22.9 (previously cited as FM 3-22, which is incorrect), does not address this at all. For the text of this document--which does *not* give the purpose of a flash suppressor, please see https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/misc/doctrine/CDG/cdg_resources/manuals/fm/fm3_22x9.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.38.197 (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Useful image?

A reader provided an image of a flash suppressor that may be useful for this article. File:Vortex Flash Hider.jpg--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Firearms Pressure Factors by Lloyd E. Brownell, PhD, Warren Phillips and Thomas Blackwood; ; published by Wolfe Press, Prescott, AZ for a full discussion of interior ballistics.

[2] Interview with founder and genius of LeFrance Specialties, long ago in a galaxy far, far way.

[1]

[2]