3 ms·
Note that it's still 122dB. That's quiet for a firearm, which is normally 140dB or more, but still louder than a car horn. I think the proper way to read the q
by reitzensteinm 7y ago
Note that it's still 122dB. That's quiet for a firearm, which is normally 140dB or more, but still louder than a car horn.
I think the proper way to read the quote is that you'll definitely hear the sound, but it won't necessarily be obvious that it has come from a firearm.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welrod https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welrod
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dblevels.htm https://www.chem.purdue.edu/chemsafety/Training/PPETrain/dbl...
- roel_v 7y agoWikipedia says 122db, but I don't think that's correct. Other sources say 73db, and describe the sound as less loud than that of the bullet impacting the woid of the target, at least with fresh baffles. (Too lazy to include links, first page google results)
- reitzensteinm 7y agoAh, Wikipedia also says that volume elsewhere in the article. The linked Forgotten Weapons goes in to detail about the rubber seals, which the projectile pierces through when the weapon is fired. The rubber partially reseals, but after a dozen shots or so the weapon degrades to the performance of a normal silenced pistol. This probably explains the discrepancy. It is indeed very quiet, and my interpretation of the quote is wrong.