Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net

   Home   Help Search  
Pages: Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Personal Drones, a local problem. How can I jam them?  (Read 14187 times)
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5661




Ignore
« Reply #165 on: Yesterday at 10:26:54 AM »

Ok go, go ahead, believe that you can silence a shotgun.  Hollywood will buy it.

Oh, and yes, geese.  Ever fire a goose load?  I've fired ONE 3-1/2" magnum goose load.  Enough for me.  I knew there was a reason I never hunted goose! 

It's not just about the pressure, it's about the expansion.  Go ahead, make your silencer.  But if it's a 'product', I think you'll quickly find out it's wishware. 

Who said anything about me making one or needing one personally??? I can step out and shot anytime I please and have done so a lot in past but rarely do it anymore. I even have a shooting range. I have fired all manor of 12 GA shells but prefer the 3 inch as velocity tends to be a bit higher with old lead loads which means less lead (aiming ahead) of a moving target. Recoil is part of game and I have shot things that kick far worse.

Yes it is about pressure and expansion but powder is fully burned in a shotgun barrel of field length and pressure is decreasing before shot leaves barrel and there is not as much volume of gas as you think.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KD0SFY
Member

Posts: 245




Ignore
« Reply #166 on: Yesterday at 12:37:35 PM »

I heard that some company is now offering a 12 GA shotgun silencer specifically for drone control.

Using it for that purpose is quite illegal.  In fact, just about anything done to bring down an aircraft, manned or unmanned -- even RC hobby aircraft, is illegal. 
Logged
KD0SFY
Member

Posts: 245




Ignore
« Reply #167 on: Yesterday at 12:48:52 PM »

Lethal?  Maybe.  The only thing that might bring it down from a 'light strike' would be propeller damage or a hit to the FCS.  Everything else is 'inside' the tubes or protected.   depends on how much energy the pellet would have at that distance and how hit hit.  I thing it would be a lucky hit.

As to silencers...  Can you imagine the size of the chambers on a shotgun silencer for it to be practical at all?  

Then again, there are 'air powered' shotguns.  Rare, but they are out there.  Been around for years.  I think there's one in the NRA museum that was along with Lewis and Clark.

Out to 200 feet the pattern would be pretty dense, especially closer resulting in multiple hits. At around 100 feet it would be toast for sure. Geese have been killed beyond 200 feet with a shot gun and they are a tougher target than a small drone.

As far as silencer, the size is more dictated by amount of powder consumed which controls volume of gas and pressure when load exits muzzle. I can tell you from experience in reloading them that shot guns use less powder than you think and have a much lower pressure too. While a magnum pistol loads or high powered rifles can have a muzzle blasts well in excess of 25,000 psi, a shot gun would have far far less. Peak chamber pressures rarely exceed 10,000 psi in a shot gun and many loads are less. It is because of large diameter of bore that higher pressures are not needed. Even a chamber pressure of only 5000 psi will provide over 2000 lbs of push to shot charge. A 22 operates in same general pressure range.

Pattern density of shotguns depends on the "choke".  Goose guns tend to have a tighter choke than say quail guns. 

Yes, people make suppressed shotguns, usually involving an integral suppressor instead of a "can" style removable suppressors.  Suppressors are legal to own in many states and at the federal level, providing you complete all the required paperwork and feel like waiting around 6 to 9 months for the approval process.  Some states do not allow suppressors, so check you state laws. 

No, suppressors do not completely silence a firearm.  They typically reduce the sound by about 20-30 decibels.  There are two sources of noise with most firearms 1) the sound of the expanding gasses being released and 2) the supersonic crack of the projectile.  A suppressor deals with the former and that is more than enough to help mask a shooter's position -- subsonic ammo is not necessary for this, so people like military snipers do not worry about this issue when using suppressors.  Subsonic ammo is primarily a concern when absolute stealth is necessary such as when hunting and not wanting to disturb other animals. 

The air gun used by Lewis and Clark was a Girandoni rifle, not a shotgun.  http://home.nra.org/history/video/lewis-and-clark-girandoni-air-rifle 

And again, shooting at "drones" or other RC aircraft is quite illegal. 
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5661




Ignore
« Reply #168 on: Yesterday at 01:37:12 PM »

The primary purpose of 22 subsonic ammo is accuracy.  When a bullet crosses sound barrier there is a bit of turbulence and by avoiding it with a 22 gives you a edge.  On suppression you will see far more than 20 or 30 db with a proper design. The Ruger M77/44  is a hot package for this. It is a bolt action 44 mag and with loads r with heavy bullets running about 1000 fps with a suppressor it is very quiet and deadly.

As far as legality if a drone owner is really snooping and gets caught and looses drone I doubt they will claim it. Only thing you might get in trouble for is discharging a weapon in city limits. Not a issue in rural areas.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KD0SFY
Member

Posts: 245




Ignore
« Reply #169 on: Yesterday at 01:48:22 PM »

The primary purpose of 22 subsonic ammo is accuracy.  When a bullet crosses sound barrier there is a bit of turbulence and by avoiding it with a 22 gives you a edge.  On suppression you will see far more than 20 or 30 db with a proper design. The Ruger M77/44  is a hot package for this. It is a bolt action 44 mag and with loads r with heavy bullets running about 1000 fps with a suppressor it is very quiet and deadly.

As far as legality if a drone owner is really snooping and gets caught and looses drone I doubt they will claim it. Only thing you might get in trouble for is discharging a weapon in city limits. Not a issue in rural areas.

While .22 subsonic ammo may sometimes benefit in the accuracy department, the primary purpose of subsonic ammo is to eliminate the sonic crack of the projectile. 

20-30 dB reductions are the norm.  Anyone claiming much more than that has to be treated with a high degree of suspicion.  One of the big problems is the lack of standardized testing procedures, so a few manufacturers game the testing process to make them appear better than they really are. 

It is against federal laws to shoot at any aircraft, manned, unmanned, or even RC hobby aircraft. 
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5661




Ignore
« Reply #170 on: Yesterday at 02:11:33 PM »

The primary purpose with 22 subsonic is indeed accuracy. For many years elle 10x subsonic 22 match ammo was ammo of choice for hard core match shooters. And the 20 to 30 db range is for headsets or ear plugs used when shooting. A good silencer can exceed this easily. I remember as a teenager mounting a can on with a few baffles and batting on a 22. It sounded like a air rifle a you could hear bullet hit target. After several shots the batting was damaged and it got a bit louder. It was only used a few times as a proof of concept and discarded.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
KD0SFY
Member

Posts: 245




Ignore
« Reply #171 on: Yesterday at 02:23:22 PM »

The primary purpose with 22 subsonic is indeed accuracy. For many years elle 10x subsonic 22 match ammo was ammo of choice for hard core match shooters. And the 20 to 30 db range is for headsets or ear plugs used when shooting. A good silencer can exceed this easily. I remember as a teenager mounting a can on with a few baffles and batting on a 22. It sounded like a air rifle a you could hear bullet hit target. After several shots the batting was damaged and it got a bit louder. It was only used a few times as a proof of concept and discarded.

Increased accuracy can be a benefit, but getting rid of the sonic crack is the purpose.  It is Eley.  And again, the normal range of reduction for suppressors is about 20 to 30 dB.  Your anecdote deals with overall amplitude, not reduction. 
Logged
KD8MJR
Member

Posts: 2167




Ignore
« Reply #172 on: Yesterday at 03:06:26 PM »

Ahh I love theses threads, we get to see the Rambo Hams come out of the woodwork.  I think the odds of a Ham bringing down a Drone are just about as high as  Mike Tyson becoming a tournament Chess Player Grin
Logged
KH6REO
Member

Posts: 1




Ignore
« Reply #173 on: Yesterday at 06:40:10 PM »

I sympathize with Billy's plight. At the risk of sounding my age, people these days have no respect for others privacy. Intrusion by blaring loud rap from vehicles, routine stealing of intellectual properties, and just as in Billy's case voyeurs has gotten out of hand. Unfortunately, in the LA area you can do nothing. Even the police can't stop spying by drones on their property, as described in the L.A. Times, www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lapd-civilian-drone-hollywood-lot-20140801-story dot html
Logged
KD8MJR
Member

Posts: 2167




Ignore
« Reply #174 on: Yesterday at 07:18:37 PM »

Don't worry about it, drones are just a new technology that has not yet felt the rath of regulation.
If it wasn't for the governments use of them laws would have already been put in place.  Just give it some time and it's guaranteed to become highly regulated. I suspect the end result will be a law that requires a flight plan submission and a insurance polcy in order to get a flight permit for just a single flight.  After all what's the alternative, 10 years from now having thousands of these things flying over houses and highways and some colliding in mid air and crashing into houses and people?  The press using them to follow celebs and politicians? Criminals using them to plan heists and create real time get away routes?
It has way too much potential for abuse and that's already been proven.
Logged
KD0SFY
Member

Posts: 245




Ignore
« Reply #175 on: Yesterday at 08:22:22 PM »

"Drones" (RC aircraft) are fairly old technology.  The affordability and stability of a small multi-rotor platform and affordable small light first person viewing capability are relatively new. 

Current federal regulations include prohibitions on:

1. Flight over 400 ft above ground level

2. Flight within 5 miles of an airport without notification and permission

3. Flight over people

4. Flight for commercial purposes without a license (which I have been told are not currently being given out)

And of course use as a platform for being a peeping tom fall under state laws -- which normally address viewing that would not otherwise be possible. 
Logged
KD8MJR
Member

Posts: 2167




Ignore
« Reply #176 on: Yesterday at 11:38:31 PM »

RC aircraft are not the same thing as drones! One could argue that the niche section of the hobby like FPV are like drones but they require a lot of skill to fly them successfully.
BTW most RC pilots do have insurance against injury to others and property.

The Drones used today are totally different, with the ability to hover and use HD camera systems they are far more invasive and much more stealthy in design. Couple that with the fact that just about anyone can easily learn to fly one and you have a whole new scenerio to deal with.

I would also point out that it seems like third point is not being applied to drones since they are often times being flow over people. I am not even sure that the current RC regulations apply to Drones since they are a fairly new technology.

Whatever the case I am pretty sure that new laws or old RC laws will be updated and heavily enforced due to the publics outrage over these new drones.
Logged
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1627




Ignore
« Reply #177 on: Today at 03:04:03 AM »

   Ammo ballistics aside, KD0SFY and KD8MJR  pretty well sum it up. As previously stated under current FAA Regs it is ILLEGAL to fly any manned/unmanned type of aircraft under 400 ft. except take off and landing in national airspace ( this includes private property), and includes drones, quad copters or any type of civilian R/C hobbyist air craft. The only legal exception to date is federal or state operation of any type of aircraft under 400 ft. under the catch all name of national security or enforcement of state and federal laws already in the books ( don't grow pot or operate a meth lab on your own property) otherwise a property owner still has certain rights to protect himself/family or potential property damage from any illegal activity on or below 400 ft. air space above it.
   As it stands now this whole civilian operated drone/camera equipped quad copter issue is basically the wild west and as a figure of speech the man with the fastest gun and deepest pockets will prevail. In the meantime the legal beagles are having a field day with this issue amassing billable hours and will eventually be able to afford a Nikon equipped Quad copter of their own. 
Logged
W8JX
Member

Posts: 5661




Ignore
« Reply #178 on: Today at 05:23:28 AM »

I used to have a pilots license and while I have not flown for many years I never heard of a 400 foot rule for manned aircraft. I have heard of 500 minimum The 500 foot rule is to give you some time in a emergency. On drones I think you will find they are limited to under 400 feet max to keep it below the 500 foot floor of aircraft.
Logged

--------------------------------------
All posted wireless using Win 8.1 RT, a Android tablet using 4G/LTE/WiFi or Sprint Note 3.
W1JKA
Member

Posts: 1627




Ignore
« Reply #179 on: Today at 07:23:22 AM »

Re: W8JX

I stand corrected, you're right, it's 500 ft. per FAA R&R Part 91 specifically 91.119
Logged
Pages: Prev 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!