Who wants a suppressor?

[831Shooter]

What is the argument or reason/purpose that individuals use that the feds and other states deem acceptable to issue a stamp for Suppressors?

No "reason" is needed in free states that actually don't try to squash the rights of their law abiding citizens..

This is not meant as a jab at you at all.. but the question above is a perfect example of how CA has trained their citizens to think.. People wanting to carry concealed for their protection need a "reason" (ie. good cause) in our wonderful state. It's been pounded in our head with all the other anti-gun propaganda that it begins to seem "normal". Even to some people who are gun owners/shooters/etc.

In other states that don't ban NFA firearms outright (most states) you fill out your Form 4 and pay your tax. If you are not a prohibited person you get your stamp. There is no explanation needed as to "why"..

We're so used to our rights being trampled it becomes hard to comprehend that the majority of the rest of the country doesn't have to beg and/or explain themselves in regards to ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

We've all got a bad case of BGOS..

PS - I want a suppressor..

[repubconserv]

Heh heh heh...

When the day and hour does arrive, the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Brady Campaign will be absolutely Biblical.

and the sound of my guns will be absolutely suppressed

[tommyid1]

The day the NFA tax is removed and I can own one in CA is the day I buy a lathe....

QFT

[Curley Red]

I am all for making them legal but would never buy one myself. I like the loud sound of gun fire, plus I don't mind wearing ear protection. Good luck on getting them legal again, seriously.

[ke6guj]

A suppressor actually does a better job at reducing recoil than most muzzle brakes.

that might be the case for smaller caliber rifles where the muzzle brakes aren't really efficient. In those cases, the added weight of the suppressor can be more effective than a brake.

but for stuff like a .50BMG, there is enough energy in the muzzle gases that a brake on a .50BMG is actually efficient. (I know, I have personally shot my .50BMG without a brake on it, it was VERY stout). In that case, the recoil reduction from the brake would be better than no brake and adding some weight in the form of a suppressor.

[anthonyca]

It would be really nice to have a suppressor on your home defense guns. Also in those areas where it is legal to shoot on private property but you may have neighbors who don't want to hear loud gunfire all day. Strange people but they do exist.

[yellowfin]

Good news, ke6guj, you don't have to choose: several .50 BMG suppressors mount onto brakes, such as the AAC Cyclops.

[ke6guj]

I'd like to see some document results showing that a .50BMG rifle with a Cyclops on it has less recoil that a rifle with a proper muzzle brake. Now, some of the "felt recoil" of a .50BMG rifle could be attributed to the noise and overpressure of the round being fired and the suppressor would be minimizing that, making the people think the rifle recoiled less.

And I wouldn't want to shoot a 50 with the muzzle brake that AAC designed for the Cyclops very much. two small blast chambers don't look like they'd be very effective.

[Hydrogenmaker]

Doing just a quick search to cover my tracks, from a "Hearing Safety" approach, good foam plugs will give you a NRR of 33db. Add to those the Muff variety and you can add another NRR of 30db if you go high end for a total NRR of 63db. Minimum threshold to start wearing hearing protection is usually 85db. Gunshots vary from caliber to caliber and load, but, I do know that a they can range from 120db upwards of 160db. So, at the low end you have little argument with double hearing protection. But, wearing hearing protection could lead to missing a rangemasters orders (it's a reach I know). Still, there could be an argument made from the hearing safety point of view.

[Korl]

Double hearing protection isn't additive.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[Hydrogenmaker]

Double hearing protection isn't additive.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

I'm no industrial hygenist, but I work in an industrial place, and I practice good hygene. Where I work, OSHA approved and inspected hearing protection is BOTH 33NRR foam plugs PLUS 24NRR Muffs for certain areas of our plant. So... what say you Grasshopper?

[Kharn]

Mutts and plugs increase protection over just one, but it is not as simple as 33+24=57

[huntercf]

I would definitely like to contribute to a class action lawsuit. I think the ADA route would probably be the quickest. The ACLU might even take up that one, they filed a lawsuit last year and the state settled in about a month.
If it is coupled with the reasoning behind having mufflers on cars then the state may give in especially if it is shown that hollywood and actual suppressors are completely different.

[adrenalinejunkie]

No "reason" is needed in free states that actually don't try to squash the rights of their law abiding citizens..

This is not meant as a jab at you at all.. but the question above is a perfect example of how CA has trained their citizens to think.. People wanting to carry concealed for their protection need a "reason" (ie. good cause) in our wonderful state. It's been pounded in our head with all the other anti-gun propaganda that it begins to seem "normal". Even to some people who are gun owners/shooters/etc.

In other states that don't ban NFA firearms outright (most states) you fill out your Form 4 and pay your tax. If you are not a prohibited person you get your stamp. There is no explanation needed as to "why"..

We're so used to our rights being trampled it becomes hard to comprehend that the majority of the rest of the country doesn't have to beg and/or explain themselves in regards to ownership of firearms by law abiding citizens.

We've all got a bad case of BGOS..

PS - I want a suppressor..

+100000000

[chead]

I have hearing damage exacerbated by gunshots. PM me if you want signatories.