Sound Suppressors and the NFA

[CaliforniaCarry]

I have a hard time with the silencer/suppressor issue. I can't see a more useful tool for the criminal and a less necessary tool for shooting enthusiasts. As suppressors denigrate accuracy especially at distance, why would any shooting enthusiast use one? The point is to hit the target and thus derive pleasure from the act. - right? On the other hand, the use for criminal enterprise is undeniable and obvious. Gang hits, spousal executions, blood feuds etc. Killing up close w/o the firearm report to give away the act is a perfect recipe for crime.

On the other hand, having to wear ear protection at the range isn't that big a deal - especially in light of the criminal uses of suppressors.

The same argument could be made for lots of things:

• On the other hand, having to use a bullet button at the range isn't that big a deal - especially in light of the criminal uses of detachable magazines.
• On the other hand, having to use a 10-round magazine at the range isn't that big a deal - especially in light of the criminal uses of high-capacity magazines.
• On the other hand, having to keep your gun locked up at home isn't that big a deal - especially in light of the criminal uses of carrying loaded firearms.

It's not really a question of whether there are "criminal uses" for something. It's a question of whether there are legitimate uses for it. Suppressors are fun, harmless, and will save gun owners' ears.

My biggest problem with the current suppressor regulation scheme is this: Why should I, as a law abiding citizen who wants to keep my household safe, have to choose between my safety and my hearing in the event of a shooting situation in my home? I guess they expect me to run and put on my hearing protection before I neutralize someone who's a threat to my household.

[CAL.BAR]

"the criminal uses of suppressors"

Where?

Give me an example.

Suppressors are still NFA items and if California allowed them, they would still need an NFA backround check and a tax stamp paid.

Registered NFA items are almost never used in crime. Their owners have too much to lose.

There may be some crime with home made or unregistered suppressors but that won't change if you allow law abiding citizens the ability to own those NFA items.

Don't buy the anti's story, a suppressor is just a collection of metal bits, it doesn't create crime or encourage crime or even make crime very quiet.

I would rather save my ears in a home defense shooting than have you feel good about prohibiting suppressors.

Huh? Folks who used them agree - when used properly, the loudest part of firing the subsonic weapon is the cycling of the slide? Seems rather quiet to me. As for the crime stats - IDK - are they being stolen in other states and used in crimes? If not, doesn't seem like it should be that bad to have them out there.

[Scott Connors]

[snippage]

On the other hand, having to wear ear protection at the range isn't that big a deal - especially in light of the criminal uses of suppressors.

It's not hearing protection at the range that is the issue: it is saving your hearing in a self-defense situation inside the home that is.

Scenario 1: You are experiencing a home invasion. You manage to reach your AR and plug one bad guy. However, you have been deafened and disoriented by the horrific muzzle blast from a 16" barrel and can't hear your wife screaming to warn you about the one in your blind spot. He stabs you, leaving your family at his mercy--oh btw he doesn't have any.

Scenerio 2: Similar situation, except that you spotted number two and have him proned out and are covering him with your rifle. The police arrive and see a man with a gun aiming at another person. They draw and shout a warning, which you can't hear. As a result, they shoot and kill you.

Same thing would happen with major caliber handguns.

You need to educate yourself about the reality of suppressors instead of relying on the FUD that Hollywood perpetuates. Please note that the justification for regulating suppressors in the NFA wasn't their use by gangsters but their possible use by poachers. In other words, it wasn't a crime problem, it was a wildlife control problem!

[Scott Connors]

Huh? Folks who used them agree - when used properly, the loudest part of firing the subsonic weapon is the cycling of the slide? Seems rather quiet to me. As for the crime stats - IDK - are they being stolen in other states and used in crimes? If not, doesn't seem like it should be that bad to have them out there.

I've fired a number of suppressed weapons, and they don't silence a weapon so much as to change the report so that it isn't recognizable as a firearm. There are some that are very quiet, but I've never heard one that reduced the decibels to below that of the action cycling.

NFA registered suppressors being stolen and used by criminals is not the problem. Suppressors can be turned out by any machine shop, or even a well-equipped muffler shop (same technology). Their effectiveness may not be up to a KAC can, but they do reduce the decibel level of the muzzle blast. For that matter, you can build a makeshift suppressor using a two-liter soda bottle, or even a potato. They're good only for one or two shots, and they're not very effective, but they're effective enough.

[Bhobbs]

I've fired a number of suppressed weapons, and they don't silence a weapon so much as to change the report so that it isn't recognizable as a firearm. There are some that are very quiet, but I've never heard one that reduced the decibels to below that of the action cycling.

NFA registered suppressors being stolen and used by criminals is not the problem. Suppressors can be turned out by any machine shop, or even a well-equipped muffler shop (same technology). Their effectiveness may not be up to a KAC can, but they do reduce the decibel level of the muzzle blast. For that matter, you can build a makeshift suppressor using a two-liter soda bottle, or even a potato. They're good only for one or two shots, and they're not very effective, but they're effective enough.

If you use subsonic ammo along with the suppressor in many cases all you will hear is the hammer falling and action cycling.

[tozan]

I was with KAC before they built a silenced revolver but we had discussed one... We did a lot of testing and development work with Guns, Silencers, Very exotic projectiles and other products. I am sure the silencers I had to play with then are obsolete by todays standards even though we were ahead of the competition then... Working with Reed Knight, Stoner and others in a think tank environment was always a fun time even though the hours sucked sometime...

One of the more interesting guns we built was on a 4 shot COP 357 frame. We machined a new upper barrel assembly. The barrels had a shoulder on the exit end that stopped a sabot styled bullet holder, the sabot would hold all pressure inside the barrel as the flechette left the barrel.

Pros: The only noise was the hammer fall, barely a click and it had no flash at all. By ATF definition it was NOT a silenced weapon either... There were no cases left behind. The Projectile was a subsonic flechette.

Con: Each shot had to be hand loaded into the barrel by unscrewing the breach then replacing the bullet and primer. Accuracy wasn't very good at longer ranges...

There were talks of building the gun using space age plastics and composites with one hold up being the primers. We wanted to make it so it would go through a metal detector. Shoot 4 times then toss it away. I can not say if any were actually ever made....

[formerTexan]

here's a full-auto HK93 doing a suppressed mag dump.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1mONqecuS4

it was VERY hearing safe. granted, we were in a big outdoor area with vertical obstacles fairly far away, so not much sound reflected back.

[2009_gunner]

I have a hard time with the silencer/suppressor issue. I can't see a more useful tool for the criminal and a less necessary tool for shooting enthusiasts. As suppressors denigrate accuracy especially at distance, why would any shooting enthusiast use one? The point is to hit the target and thus derive pleasure from the act. - right? On the other hand, the use for criminal enterprise is undeniable and obvious. Gang hits, spousal executions, blood feuds etc. Killing up close w/o the firearm report to give away the act is a perfect recipe for crime.

On the other hand, having to wear ear protection at the range isn't that big a deal - especially in light of the criminal uses of suppressors.

If a gang member or criminal wants to kill someone quietly, they can use a large knife.

I've seen military sniper rifles with silencers attached, so I think they are just as accurate with a can.

Personally, as much as I try not to flinch with a loud firearm, I still do it sometimes. The freedom to use a silencer would make me a more accurate shooter and save the hearing of frequent shooters (I've seen some super deaf ones).

Many people who are obviously not criminals have a great interest in silencers. I don't think they have nefarious plans for them.