Truth about the original two stage Werbell can

ADarkMan

Member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Aug 28, 2024
Messages
7
Location
USA
I read online that the larger two stage can was capable of reducing the initial decibel report from 161 to 19. This was the only reference I found and I had wondered if anyone here knew if...

1. Is this even physically possible? Especially given the times and the tech available

2. IF so, the literature I found stated the smaller can used wipes but I found no mention of wipes in the two stage. Does anyone know if the two stage Werbell used wipes or not?
 

SecondAmend

Well-known member
Feedback: 13 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
1,823
The MAC Man book by Frank Iannamico has several pages of discussion and illustrations of WerBell silencers. No noise reduction numbers though. Probably because noise reduction is somewhat ammo dependent.
MHO, YMMV, etc.
 

ADarkMan

Member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Aug 28, 2024
Messages
7
Location
USA
I have to say, this place is a wealth of knowledge, I have never come across this book before. I will definitely get my hands on it. It won't answer this question, but it might answer others, so thank you for this.
 

timkel

Well-known member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 27, 2006
Messages
1,440
Yes, the original 2 stage Ingram suppressor endcaps had wipes.
The sound reduction numbers are not that reliable. There was no industry standard procedure for sound reduction testing.
 

Slowmo

Well-known member
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Joined
Nov 7, 2022
Messages
588
Location
Georgia
I read online that the larger two stage can was capable of reducing the initial decibel report from 161 to 19. This was the only reference I found and I had wondered if anyone here knew if...

1. Is this even physically possible? Especially given the times and the tech available

2. IF so, the literature I found stated the smaller can used wipes but I found no mention of wipes in the two stage. Does anyone know if the two stage Werbell used wipes or not?
Did you mean 19 or maybe 119?

I am certain it did not reduce sound to 19db.
 

root

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 56 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jan 15, 2003
Messages
3,785
My 1973 2 stage 45 acp can has a wiped end cap.
Never used a wipe and it still sounds great.

I understand why they were incorperated back then they wanted to sqeeze out every bit of performance they could for their target audience.
But I'm not high speed, low drag, or covert so the little extra doesn't matter to me.
We have a member ( Marcuss99) here who compared the old skewl 2 stage to a bunch of other modern subgun cans he confirmed what I had known from my little exp. with other high volume cans.
The Sionics still holds it's own or exceeds newer Mfg. designs.

ETA: member ID correction and link to discussion.post # 34 for Marcus99's take on his findings.


 
Last edited:

pmf

Well-known member
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
Joined
Feb 25, 2003
Messages
2,340
I read online that the larger two stage can was capable of reducing the initial decibel report from 161 to 19. This was the only reference I found and I had wondered if anyone here knew if...
Only on the movies.
 

slimshady

Well-known member
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
1,088
Way back in the day there was an article on the .380 MAC equipped with an unknown silencer. The author stated that upon firing you only heard the bolt clacking back and forth and a weird noise they finally identified. Seems empties flying through the air make noise just like blowing over the top of an empty soda bottle does...

Wasn't there, just reporting what was written about it.
 

Gaujo

UZI Talk Supporter
Feedback: 10 / 0 / 1
Joined
Sep 11, 2013
Messages
4,334
Location
Raleigh, NC
The thing was made for people doing things in a serious context, ie warriors that need a device to quietly take people out. It does that really well and the wipe is on point for the use case. Wipes really kill accuracy but strongly improve sound performance. That accuracy penalty is ok for a 5 round burst from relatively close distances.
 

Loco

Well-known member
Feedback: 1 / 0 / 0
Joined
Oct 8, 2017
Messages
125
Even with the slowest .380 ammo, the report through the BEST suppressors is audible. It's "Hollywood quiet," but audible. We've listened to 30 rds hit the dirt mound through a Coastal MIMS 9mm strapped to an M11a1, but 19dB is quite a stretch. And the Mitch can is far from as quiet as a MIMS, IMO. Even in 1976 with factory-fresh wipes. 60dB? maybe.

19dB is silent-fart quiet.

Raindrops are appx 50dB.

 

nklf

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 24 / 0 / 0
Joined
Jul 8, 2015
Messages
1,147
Location
DFW
Remember that in the 70s we were using analog sound meters and they could not accurately measure the quick impulse of a gun shot. So it is possible that someone got a reading of 19db. As previously mentioned there was no standardized testing method so again they could claim what they wanted to. It does not mean they were that quiet.
 

Hey...

UZI Talk Life Member
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
3,374
Location
Atlanta
Typo, probably 129 for an old school 9mm can with big volume and a wipe.

New stuff 9mm just baffles is in the 120s range.

Rimfires are in the teens, so doubt the typo is 119
 

Please Visit our Sister Sites Below

Sister Board - Sturmgewehr Sister Board - MachinegunBoards


Please consider becoming an UZI Talk Supporter
Top