PDA

View Full Version : Suppressor or Barrel?


lordres
10-13-2011, 11:35 AM
I'm not really familiar with suppressor laws. What would this fall under?

http://sgcusa.com/overstock/supressors-adapters/gemtech-oasis-r-10-22-barrel.html

"THIS IS NO HACKED-UP RUGERŪ BARREL MODIFICATION: Your suppressed barrel is built from the ground up as a precision silenced barrel system, delivering excellent accuracy in a compact, packable package."

Bhobbs
10-13-2011, 11:38 AM
It's a suppressor.

Briancnelson
10-13-2011, 11:40 AM
Suppressor. Can't get around that law by building it into the barrel sadly.

zhyla
10-13-2011, 12:23 PM
Suppressor. Can't get around that law by building it into the barrel sadly.

True. Maybe by building it into a receiver though.

armygunsmith
10-13-2011, 12:33 PM
True. Maybe by building it into a receiver though.

Someone else had a similar idea. I don't know where it went though.

Burbur
10-13-2011, 12:57 PM
Someone else had a similar idea. I don't know where it went though.

see: Gammo Whisper

Flopper
10-13-2011, 1:24 PM
see: Gammo Whisper

The Whisper's suppressor is not integral to the receiver; it's integral to the barrel.

Airgun suppressors are legal if they can't be used by a firearm, which doesn't necessarily mean they have to be integral to the barrel or receiver of the airgun.

IIRC there are still some non-integral airgun suppressors which are legal since a firearm would destroy said suppressors.

Kharn
10-13-2011, 1:26 PM
True. Maybe by building it into a receiver though.If you design a physical object to reduce the sound of the shot by 1db, it is a suppressor. A monolithic Ruger MkII reciever/barrel/suppressor combo is taxed.

Flopper
10-13-2011, 1:27 PM
True. Maybe by building it into a receiver though.

Someone else had a similar idea. I don't know where it went though.

The theory is sound, but I have't heard of anyone following through on it yet.

Flopper
10-13-2011, 1:35 PM
If you design a physical object to reduce the sound of the shot by 1db, it is a suppressor. A monolithic Ruger MkII reciever/barrel/suppressor combo is taxed.

But the reason it's taxed is because it's taking an already existing firearm with a known volume output and lowering it.

No one knows exactly what ATF would say if a new design with integral suppression would be taxed.

It shouldn't be taxed since no one can logically say you've lowered the sound of a firearm if that's the only manner in which it exists, ie, "suppressed."

It would be interesting to make a base model which was "suppressed," and a modified model which was "amplified."

("Check out my new amplified pistol, it's SOOOO fricking loud!")

dantodd
10-13-2011, 2:04 PM
If you design a physical object to reduce the sound of the shot by 1db, it is a suppressor. A monolithic Ruger MkII reciever/barrel/suppressor combo is taxed.

Then an indoor gun range is a "suppressor"

Kharn
10-13-2011, 2:32 PM
But the reason it's taxed is because it's taking an already existing firearm with a known volume output and lowering it.

No one knows exactly what ATF would say if a new design with integral suppression would be taxed.

It shouldn't be taxed since no one can logically say you've lowered the sound of a firearm if that's the only manner in which it exists, ie, "suppressed."

It would be interesting to make a base model which was "suppressed," and a modified model which was "amplified."

("Check out my new amplified pistol, it's SOOOO fricking loud!")
TC Contender with the same barrel length in that caliber would be used for comparison.

Kharn
10-13-2011, 2:33 PM
Then an indoor gun range is a "suppressor"

ATF only cares if it is attached to the firearm.

yellowfin
10-13-2011, 3:20 PM
It would be interesting to make a base model which was "suppressed," and a modified model which was "amplified."

("Check out my new amplified pistol, it's SOOOO fricking loud!")

You mean like this?
http://www.degroattactical.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/IMG_2898.jpghttp://www.degroattactical.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/IMG_2895.jpg
http://www.degroattactical.com/content/degroat-flash-enhancers

dantodd
10-13-2011, 3:38 PM
ATF only cares if it is attached to the firearm.

So shoot your rifle/revolver through a tripod mounted "silencing tube" of some sort. Probably couldn't be made to work with a semi-auto handgun.

Mikeb
10-13-2011, 3:44 PM
So shoot your rifle/revolver through a tripod mounted "silencing tube" of some sort. Probably couldn't be made to work with a semi-auto handgun.

I hear there are folk that use a row of old tires to quiet the report. Personally I've worried that owning guns and pillows could be used against me.
Mike

Kharn
10-13-2011, 3:45 PM
So shoot your rifle/revolver through a tripod mounted "silencing tube" of some sort. Probably couldn't be made to work with a semi-auto handgun.

Perfectly legal, some ranges use several tires in a row to contain the muzzle blast.

Flopper
10-13-2011, 3:46 PM
TC Contender with the same barrel length in that caliber would be used for comparison.

How could that reasonably be used for comparison?

Every firearm creates a different decibel level, even in the same caliber with the same barrel length.

Think about how silly your comparison is: most bolt action rifles will be a different noise level than a semi-auto in the same caliber and barrel length. Does that mean the quieter example is a suppressor?

Kharn
10-13-2011, 3:57 PM
How could that reasonably be used for comparison?

Every firearm creates a different decibel level, even in the same caliber with the same barrel length.

Think about how silly your comparison is: most bolt action rifles will be a different noise level than a semi-auto in the same caliber and barrel length. Does that mean the quieter example is a suppressor?

Its the ATF we're talking about. Either they chop off the suppressing portion of the receiver or find a suitable firearm to compare against, and they wont pick the firearm most adventageous to the defendant. The ATF's standard is the loudest sound level regardless of location is what counts, that is how krink and Noveske's flaming pig brakes are able to pass, they direct most of the sound down range so the sound level is the same, but to the shooter it is quieter than a rifle without a brake.

Wherryj
10-13-2011, 3:59 PM
ATF only cares if it is attached to the firearm.

Thus, you don't need a "tax" for a pair of ear plugs...other than sales that is.

Flopper
10-13-2011, 4:00 PM
Its the ATF we're talking about. Either they chop off the suppressing portion of the receiver or find a suitable firearm to compare against, and they wont pick the firearm most adventageous to the defendant.

Fair enough.

I thought this was your argument.

I realize ATF is hardly fair, logical, or even legal in its methods and rulings.

Wherryj
10-13-2011, 4:03 PM
You mean like this?
http://www.degroattactical.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/IMG_2898.jpghttp://www.degroattactical.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/IMG_2895.jpg
http://www.degroattactical.com/content/degroat-flash-enhancers

Seeing how California's opinion regarding guns is "louder is better", I'm surprised that these aren't required equipment.