Sub-sonic ammo just as loud as super-sonic ammo...

[sneaker]

Hi all,

To state the obvious for a second here, sub-sonic ammo obviously never exceeds the speed of sound.

I assumed (as a novice mind you) that this would make it significantly quieter, but it seems I'm wrong.

I was at range today with a mate and his new .22 and he tried a few different types of factory ammo in super-sonic and sub-sonic.

To my ears, the sub-sonic sounded just as loud as the super-sonic rounds.

So what am I missing?

[reddog]

Might just have been the acoustics at the range , but out spotlighting there is definitely a difference but they still go bang

[SendIt]

Like reddog said, they still go bang... They're not designed to mimic a suppressed round or anything like that.

Biggest noticeable difference is lack of ballistic crack, not necessarily a lower db level from the ammo.

[Spooner]

From the shooters vantage point, supersonic and subsonic rounds sound much the same for small calibre stuff like the .22

From 100 or so the subsonic rounds are harder to place, but that's not the idea anyway.

The point of sub-sonic ammo is to avoid the instability cause in flight when it goes transonic and its shockwave catching up knocks it around.

As it never goes supersonic, there is no transition through the wave and it's more stable across it's entire flight path.

[Arth]

A bit of coverage on the transonic stuff for you here, sneaker - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=316

[samf]

Biggest noticeable difference is lack of ballistic crack, not necessarily a lower db level from the ammo.

Hopefully the powers that be wake up to the benefit of suppressors soon... Would love to not have to muck about with ear muffs each time I go shooting.

A suppressed .22 with sub-sonic ammo would be the business

[on_one_wheel]

Supressors..... yes please, The bigest problem I hav ever had when out shooting is noise. With reduced noise you will cause less stress to other animals, better for your ears and less likley to have people frightend by the noise of the rifle.

[Boatman]

We need to take a leaf from New Zealand's book.

I believe I've read that suppressors are mandatory in some situations for hearing protection for all.

[sneaker]

Biggest noticeable difference is lack of ballistic crack, not necessarily a lower db level from the ammo.

I know what you mean now.

Had another days shooting and was paying closer attention this time... Shot some subsonics, standard ammo and some stingers.

The crack of those stingers really adds to the report, even if the 'boom' is about the same.

[Norton]

The crack of those stingers really adds to the report, even if the 'boom' is about the same.

The HV ammo doesn't shoot much good in my experience anyway.

I've shot 6-7 types and none shot less than an inch at 50m, most half were 1.5" +

That's enough accuracy for pest control obviously, but if you want the convenience of just having 1 load that will work for hunting and double as range ammo where you're shooting for accuracy I reckon you're better off looking at the standard or sub-sonic stuff.

[Lorgar]

Don't forget that just because ammo is 'subsonic' doesn't mean it's all the same.

Below that 1,116 FPS barrier there are still higher and lower velocity ammunitions.

Lighter powder charges and lower velocity rounds will reduce the sound somewhat.

If you're trying to find a real quiet (or if you just want to try it for fun) have a look at some of the 'short range' or 'indoor range' ammo like RWS Z-Lang.

I don't know what you're shooting at the moment but stuff like the Z-Lang ammo may be quieter still.

[sneaker]

Thanks Lorgar, I'll try a few sub-sonic loads and see what I can find.