Questions on silencers and sub-sonic ammo.


PDA






eurohacker
July 7, 2005, 09:06 AM
Yeah, I know. Muffler is the correct term but ***, eh?

I've seen some weaps with integral silencers. MP5SD comes to mind as well as some SMG from WW2 that I can't remember the name of. The MP5SD is actually unique in that it slows regular 9mm ammo down to sub-sonic speeds, right? Any other silencer that does that?

Is there good sub-sonic rifle ammo? I am talking .22LR, .223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, .50BMG etc. What are the ballistic properties of those? Is it powerful enough to work in gas-operated rifles?

Would carrying a silenced pistol be practical? For a normal handgun it seems clunky and unwieldy but what if you had like a derringer or one of these (http://www.serbu.com/buttmaster.htm)?

Why aren't there handguns out there on the market with integral silencers? That would be neat. If they could make the silencer short enough to not be an encumbrance I mean.

If you enjoyed reading about "Questions on silencers and sub-sonic ammo." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
grimjaw
July 7, 2005, 09:14 AM
A few of the silencer manufacturers also make custom Ruger MKII/MKIII pistols with integral silencers. I've seen at least one manufacturer that makes a customized CZ rifle with integral silencer. Just look around, you should find a couple. Personally I'd rather have a silencer I could remove. If they ever made silencers illegal, I could probably still keep the gun that way, or at least travel into other states with just the gun and not the silencer.

Can't answer the question on subsonic ammo.

jmm

Tim3256
July 7, 2005, 09:17 AM
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.

shooter1
July 7, 2005, 09:20 AM
Actually there are weapons available with intergral silencers. The Ruger MKll and the 10/22 to mention a couple. With the proper licensing and registeration of course. There are a number of manufacturers that make subsonic ammo in .22/9mm, and of course the old .45 ACP is subsonic. I don't know of any centerfire rifle subsonic ammo commerically available. I wouldn't see where a suppressed weapon would be useful or advisable for a CCW. Think of them as a quiet form of pest control without disturbing the neighbors.
str1

mete
July 7, 2005, 09:42 AM
The proper term is suppressor. There is excellent subsonic 22lr ammo ,I use RWS hp.In a rifle it's very quiet, you don't need a suppressor. Getting suppressors means permits and fees from the ATF.

CentralTexas
July 7, 2005, 09:52 AM
"Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use."

Then I realized you are from MA, it will take awhile but if you work hard you can erase years of gun prejudice by hanging out on the High Road. I have hope for you, Welcome.
CT

Bubbles
July 7, 2005, 10:23 AM
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.

I hunt with a suppressed .308 Remington 700 bolt-action rifle. I use the suppressor for many reasons.

1) Reduces felt recoil by 90% or more. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm recoil-sensitive, and by reducing recoil I'm less likely to flinch and possibly make a bad shot.

2) Suppressors also reduce barrel whip, which increases accuracy. Again, a plus for rifle shooting in both competitions and for hunting, especially at long distances. My deer rifle is doped to 1200 yards.

3) Noise reduction - I'll still have my hearing intact in mid-life and my later years.

4) Noise reduction - suburbia is encroaching on some of the farms where I have permission to hunt. What the neighbors don't hear doesn't bother them.

5) Noise reduction - the deer are less skittish when they don't hear gunfire. All they know is one member of the herd lay down suddenly, which gives other hunters in my group a better chance of bagging one. Note - the deer have overrun my county so badly that our season runs from Thanksgiving to New Year's, buck and doe all season, and hunters get 4-5 tags each.

6) BECAUSE I WANT ONE! :neener:

Control Group
July 7, 2005, 10:36 AM
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.
Please understand that I say this without any personal prejudice, and don't mean to come across as demeaning in any way. That question, though, is fundamentally flawed if we're supposed to be living in a free country.

I don't need to have a reason to do or own something. If someone else wants to stop me, they need to have a reason I shouldn't. That's the very basis of freedom: I shouldn't have to ask permission to do anything. It's why the 9th amendment is in the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which essentially means "you can do anything you want, unless we specifically say you can't." Toss in the 10th ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), and it becomes "you can do anything you want, unless we specifically say you can't, and we can only say you can't if the Constitution specifically grants us the authority to do so."

So I challenge you, then, to explain why I shouldn't have a silencer. I can't think of any legitimate reason, other than paranoia or (possibly) ignorance.

Please don't say "for the children" either, that's pretty lame, unless the children are running the country, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate government.

As I've said before and I'll say again: if you have to justify your rights, you've already lost them.

Jax
July 7, 2005, 10:55 AM
Tim:

"Why would anyone want a silencer?"

1) Because I like to practice my target shooting in a semi-rural area (where my shooting is perfectly legal) and minimize the noise impact on the neighbors - reducing the likelihood they'll get upset and try to force me to stop.

2) Because I like to shoot "au natural" (without hearing protection that is :D ) and still want to be able to hear when I'm in my later years.

3) Because I like to hunt *and* be able to hear what's going on around me - safer for everyone concerned, dont'cha know.

4) Because I like them - and I can.

Suppressors have a bad rap here in the US. In many countries in Europe, where gun control is far more strict, suppressors are sold over the counter with no restrictions whatsoever. In some places, it is illegal to shoot/hunt *without* one because of the noise pollution and the population density.

Good question, glad I could help!

"I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use."

Perhaps this will assist you to think of a legitimate use and help with your prejudices. :fire:

Jax

Dain Bramage
July 7, 2005, 11:14 AM
It's for the children!

-They want to preserve their hearing too! :D

BeLikeTrey
July 7, 2005, 11:37 AM
The suppressor itself is fairly primitive in the SD. It is basically a series of gas diversion flaps angled toward the barrel. it actually doesnt do the slowing down of the projectile. The SD combines "barrel porting" which slows the velocity to under 1050 @ MSL (temp and alt cause variance) the suppressor slows gas and heat expansion. To me it isn't as quiet as most people expect... especially if you have been watching movies ;) Remember there is no "whiz" sound out of a supressor, its more like a muffled "pop" almost as if you were to hit a wire brush on a piece of wood.

3 things to remember when making a gun quiet,
1) bullet speed (sonic crack)
2) heat vs ambient temp meeting causing noise
3) gas 's sudden expansion into atmosphere (think popped balloon)

Now as to Why you would have one? Why not. It is polite to others (noise pollution). It is going to save your hearing. It is also something that you should take advantage of if so inclined since you can by law in many states. (if you can afford it)
Also no gun-shy Game... sounds like a good deal to me.

-personally, I can't afford them right now but I'm sure I'd get one if I could... Right now Flying is too expensive to do anything else :cool:

-edit BTW the WWII weapon you may be thinking of is the STEN or even the Delisle (sp?) Carbine? both were modified for clandestine operation. despite other reports ... from what it was, the STEN was a good weapon. The Delisle was a nice weapon as well. IIRC it was a carbine rifle using the inherently subsonic .45 ammo.

Tim3256
July 7, 2005, 05:17 PM
Central Texas: Yeah, thanks. But you never did answer the question....

Bubbles: #s 1-5, Legit answers. Thank you. But #6? But come on now, if you're gonna be nasty, then so will I..."recoil reduction, barrel whip, noise reduction" Hmmmm, get yourself a nice BB gun, son. :neener:

Control Group: No QUESTION is flawed in a free country! I simply asked why. I never even hinted anything beyond that. If you look at the original post, EUROHACKER wanted to know about practicality of CARRYING suppressed. That is NOT legitimate, in my opinion. I'm not ignorant, as you implied, I never invoked the "for the children" crap, and I never asked you to justify your (our) rights. And BTW: the civics lesson is not necessary, I know what the Constitution says, friend.

As far as game hunting suppressed goes, I guess...if it floats you boat, whatever, but I don't think it's "safer for everyone". Sorry, I'm not following the logic there.

My real issue is with carrying suppressed. I still don't see it.

Thanks to all that tried to answer without getting mean. I never meant to imply that I would deny to others what I see as unneccesary.
I guess I should just be happy no-one played the "troll" card.

MAUSER88
July 7, 2005, 05:28 PM
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?

Because you can!!!!!! That's reason enough for me. Sadly I'm in NJ and CAN'T own one. :rolleyes:

El Tejon
July 7, 2005, 05:28 PM
Tim, I go to Boston twice a year so I speak Massachusetts. Suppressors are beneficial to public health, especially women and minorities.

Discharging firearms produces soundwaves which damage hearing even with hearing protection such as muffs and ear plugs. Women and minorities are especially suspectible to hearing damage from evil white men with guns. As well, suppressors slow the escape of noxious gases from the firearm which helps the environment and fluffy bunnies.

Thus, I own suppressors to better enjoy my firearms in a politically and environmentally correct manner. :cool:

P.S. you're not a troll, just curious. Giving knowledge is what THR is all about!

Euro,

Subsonic rifle ammo is available. Usually best results are obtained with handloads though.

Carrying a suppressed pistol is impractical. The weapon is unwieldly unless one is going plinking (informal target shooting).

There are pistols made with integral suppressors. The market is very small (usually aftermarket) because of the NFA hassle.

Jay Kominek
July 7, 2005, 05:34 PM
My real issue is with carrying suppressed. I still don't see it. Maybe he has very little hearing left, and some reason to believe it is likely he'll need to defend himself, and so he wants to make sure he won't make things any worse in that unfortunate event.
Maybe he wants to feel like a high-speed low-drag operator.
Maybe he lost a bet and has to see if he'll be made with a 10" supressor stuffed down his pants.
Maybe he is writing a book/screenplay and wants to make it realistic.

Life is too short to worry about why crazy people on the Internet want to do something. Their dime, their time. Just sit back and watch the fun.

Control Group
July 7, 2005, 05:40 PM
By the phraseology of your question, you indicate that you think suppressors are illegitimate, and that using them for hunting is lame, unless you're planning on murdering someone.

It sure sounded like you were coming hard against the right to carry a suppressor, and the similarity of your word choice to the sort of rhetoric you hear from antis is significant. You didn't mean it that way, fine. I apologize for causing offense. But I hope you understand that I would expect much the same response as I gave from people if I posted in a thread here saying:

Why would anyone want a gun?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.

Again, I apologize for apparently misinterpreting what you meant. I do hope, though, you understand how your original post lends itself to such misinterpretation. Mea culpa.

The_Antibubba
July 8, 2005, 12:05 AM
A suppressor reduces the decibel level of a shot, and requires a special license to own. But how much of a sound reduction must be made for it to be legally considered a supressor? IOW, if a 20% reduction(for example) in sound level is "suppression", would a 15% reduction be permissible without the permit?

Justin
July 8, 2005, 12:10 AM
My real issue is with carrying suppressed. I still don't see it. I have it on good authority that discharging a pistol inside the confines of an enclosed space, such as a car, will result in higher levels of hearing damage than discharging the same gun at an open-air range.

Seems to me that a suppressor on a car gun might not be a bad idea.

Unlikely?
Yeah, but you never asked "what are the odds" only "why would you want."

:)

boofus
July 8, 2005, 12:12 AM
If it lowers the sound level even 1 dB the ATF can rule it is a suppressor. The flash suppressor/moderator on the XM177 rifle lowers the report by a few dB and the ATF decided it qualified as a silencer even though it was designed to lessen the flash.

bogie
July 8, 2005, 12:20 AM
Huh?

Old shooters tend to be deaf.

When I shoot indoors, even with just a .22, I wear plugs and muffs.

If I could find one compact enough, I'd want a suppressor - wouldn't have to greatly silence - just enough that I wouldn't hear that permanent ringing in my ears.

You've got to realize that suppressors were completely unregulated prior to 1934. And then a $200 tax was placed on what were then $5 pieces of hardware.

wdlsguy
July 8, 2005, 12:21 AM
Seems to me that a suppressor on a car gun might not be a bad idea.

Or a house gun.

OEF_VET
July 8, 2005, 12:25 AM
For those interested in buying a suppressor, check out my thread here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=146085) for info on a group buy I've put together.

Frank

Zundfolge
July 8, 2005, 12:33 AM
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.


Yeah ... no legitimate use ... because anyone who uses a firearm in self defense DESERVES to suffer permanent hearing damage :rolleyes:

Hollywood is what has convinced most people that suppressors are only tools of criminals (much like they try to do with guns in general).

Hell, in Finland I understand that they require the use of suppressors.


Anyway, eurohacker, the reason there aren't many pistols made with integrated suppressors is because the stupid 1934 National Firearms Act requires a $200 tax for a $5 part (plus "permission" to own it). Also, they tend to be bulky, and handguns are all about compactness (even large handguns) otherwise you'd pack an SMG or rifle.

Marshall
July 8, 2005, 01:18 AM
Tim,

If it makes you feel any better I thought it was a good question. I have never thought of some of the uses for suppressors that I have read about here in this thread. Some seem a little far fetched to me but some make a lot of sense. Being a hunter and one that uses guns for hunting and sighting in mostly, I had never thought of any reasons to have a suppressor, ear plugs seem much cheaper. I learned something too.

thorn726
July 8, 2005, 04:05 AM
well this is kinda funny for me.

i am pretty new to all this, but been on this forum long enough to have heard why..
really so funny, because i never thought they were legal anywhere, and one word made me realize how smart and needed they are-
HEARING.
helps that my lady friend sells hearing aids so i am extra aware.

even in self defense, it sure would be easier to place the second and third shots (if needed) if your ears arent ringing from the first.

but i really like the idea for home ranges, not disturbing neighbors, etc.
loud gunshots make antis nervous from miles away- it goes on and on.

chopinbloc
July 8, 2005, 05:34 AM
i have to agree with tim on the issue of carrying suppressed. it seems to me that you WANT to make lots of noise in a defense situation - to rattle your attacker and summon help as quickly as possible.

also, for the semantics nazis: silencer, suppressor and muffler are all acceptable terms. one of the first developers of said technology called his design a silencer when its effects were fare from silent. i forget his name. look, there is a difference between a clip and a magazine. they are two distinct ammo carrying devices. there is no difference between silencer and suppressor except that if you say suppressor a person might not be sure if you were talking about a flash suppressor or sound suppressor.

harvester of sorrow
July 8, 2005, 05:47 AM
chopinbloc, Hiram Maxim is the early designer you're looking for.



Why would anyone want a "silencer"?

Well, Tim, have you ever shot a suppressed weapon and thought "Wow! That's cool!" Or, have you ever watched a new shooter or child shoot a suppressed weapon and turn around with a huge grin on their face? Either of those are good enough reasons for me, and if they're not for you, oh well.

Tim3256
July 8, 2005, 10:13 AM
I stand by my position.
Neither I, nor the original poster was referring to hunting. This is a self-defense issue, and in a SHTF scenario, I'm not concerned with stealth. I WANT alot of attention. If you don't agree, that's fine, I can respect that.

From the original poster:
Would carrying a silenced pistol be practical? For a normal handgun it seems clunky and unwieldy but what if you had like a derringer or one of these?

Why aren't there handguns out there on the market with integral silencers? That would be neat.

What I do take offense to is the condescending remarks about my being from MA. That is irrelevant, childish and arrogant. Besides, if you took the time to read my info, you'd find that I'm not from MA. I just live here, folks, I didn't invent the place, and I am definitely NOT your vision of the typical MA lefty. Damn, guys; I'm on your side with regards to 2amend issues, and then some. Just because someone wants to find out where the thinking is on a particular matter, that's no reason to be a jackass about it.

Tim, I go to Boston twice a year so I speak Massachusetts. Suppressors are beneficial to public health, especially women and minorities.

Discharging firearms produces soundwaves which damage hearing even with hearing protection such as muffs and ear plugs. Women and minorities are especially suspectible to hearing damage from evil white men with guns. As well, suppressors slow the escape of noxious gases from the firearm which helps the environment and fluffy bunnies.
Then I realized you are from MA, it will take awhile but if you work hard you can erase years of gun prejudice by hanging out on the High Road.

Actually I'm from TN, so if you're this narrow-minded, you probably think that I'm also a toothless hillbilly that's in love with his sister. So either way, I guess you're just better than me. Good for you.

For those of you that answered intelligently...thank you. You made me think about another point of view. That's what it's supposed to be all about. ;)

Third_Rail
July 8, 2005, 10:20 AM
I'm from MA as well, though I was born and raised here.


I think silencers should be completely legal, transferred with no more paperwork than a box of thumbtacks.


Heck, if you want to carry one on a pistol, go ahead. When I carry I'm not wanting a pistol that long! Most pistols are long enough without another 5"+ on the end of the barrel.



However, what the heck is up with everyone jumping on Tim3256? He ASKED a question, he didn't say they should be banned. He was asking to obtain more information, that's all.

No different than when I first signed up and asked questions - and I'm from MA too, so don't use that as cover. Remember, this is the High Road, let's all live up to that as best we can.

Jax
July 8, 2005, 12:50 PM
Third Rail,

Some answered his QUESTION without rancor, I feel I certainly did.

However, it's not the question that is at issue with me. Tim stated with his followup OPINION that he thought suppressors were not legitimate for non-MIL/non-LEO use. He did not qualify his opinion, adding the carrying part, until later.

Legitimate is a strong word to use and implies legality. I inferred from the statement that he was making a judgement call about the legal appropriateness of *my* ownership and use of a suppressor, without qualification. That is where I got a little miffed. While Tim is free to make decisions about *his* need/desire for a suppressor, his freedom does not extend to *my* need/ownership/use of one.

Tim,

Hearing is an important sense in many hunting situations, and contributes a great deal to the shoot/no-shoot decision when your vision is impaired (trees/scrub brush). By applying all of my senses and being certain of my target *and* what is beyond it, I think I am certainly a safer hunter. I'm sorry you feel that is a lame reason. We can disagree on that issue.

The hearing sense *is* of much less concern when hunting on open terrain, where you can see everything.

Jax

Omni04
July 8, 2005, 01:15 PM
hmmm ive never been hunting but how much would a suppressed rifle help? If you were hunting a deer, and missed, would it still hear something and run away?

I mean obviously, less noise would be better all around if you can afford it, im just wondering how much it would help if you are hunting deer.

thanks guys :)

grimjaw
July 8, 2005, 01:34 PM
I don't know about concealed carrying suppressed. I haven't seen many suppressors for centerfire pistols that would be practical to conceal, at least without a trenchcoat. Aren't most of the inexpensive suppressors manufactured for .22 caliber firearms, a less-than-idea cailber for self-defense? I agree that it's probably not *practical* to carry a concealed, suppressed weapon, but should it be illegal?

Let me phrase the question a different way. Put aside how theoretically impossible it is, let's just say that subsonic, centerfire ammunition is developed that when fired from a 2" snubnosed revolver, sounds no louder than a subsonic .22LR cartridge out of a rifle barrel. This ammunition is not cost-prohibitive to manufacture or purchase, and is available in most common calibers. It proves to be an effective self-defense cartridge. Should it be legal to carry this *ammunition* concealed?

Is it the delivery device that's the problem, or the fact that no one can hear the shot? It's currently legal for me to carry a suppressed weapon: a knife. The only sounds issuing from use of that are the attacker's blood-curdling screams.

Go a step further and say that suppressors are developed that are much smaller than the those currently in use today. Should we be allowed to conceal them?

I'm required to operate my car with the seatbelt fastened in most places. Why not *require* suppressed weapons and ammunition, for safety reasons, just like the requirements for ear protection at most shooting ranges.

I do not think there should be any more legislation for suppressors than already exists for handguns or rifles. Firing a suppressed weapon in a self-defense situation *in my own home* would reduce the risk of hearing damage to myself (and my attacker, your honor), and the reduced flash makes it a more effective firearm if used in a darkened room.

Please poke holes in this target argument, since I can't plink with my new Single Six until Sunday. :(

Actually I'm from TN, so if you're this narrow-minded, you probably think that I'm also a toothless hillbilly that's in love with his sister.

Tim3256, you'll have to fight me for your sister, I saw her first!

jmm

Travis McGee
July 8, 2005, 01:36 PM
Tim, Tim, Tim...
Are you aware that in some countries you are considered downright rude if you don't have a legal suppressor?

Are you telling me you enjoy being blasted by the shots of all of the other shooters at your range?

You wouldn't enjoy shooting guns, without the ear damage?

Travis McGee
July 8, 2005, 01:38 PM
Omni,
I think your neighbors would appreciate your hunting or target practicing with a suppressed rifle on your own land. Who wants to hear BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! from the next property all day? Legal suppressors lead to happier neighbors, and more acceptance of shooting generally.

Travis McGee
July 8, 2005, 01:42 PM
Tim, a SHTF scenario is when you will want to use a suppressor the MOST. If you are trying to do a little stealthy meat hunting, you will not want to attract the attention of the 15 armed marauders who have recently "moved in" to the estate down the road. Your hunting shots will be like a dinner bell for a gang of bandits. You don't want them to even know you exist. They will not be frightened off by a solo guy shooting now and then, they are gang bangers! They were raised around gun fights! Your unsuppressed shots will attract their attention, which is what you DON'T want.

Marshall
July 8, 2005, 01:44 PM
Where is hunting with a suppressor or silencer legal? In my state it is surely not legal therefore has never crossed my mind. The only reason I can see for using them for hunting in a state where they are not legal would be to make it easier to poach, hunt at night or hunt out of season. What am I missing?

ODWC Regs (http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/regs/huntregs4.htm)

Deer & Elk
Legal Means of Taking:

Rifles: Centerfire rifles firing at least a 55-grain weight soft-nosed or hollow point bullet. Clips or magazines of all .22 caliber centerfire firearms may not be capable of holding more than seven (7) rounds of ammunition.
Muzzleloaders: Equipment described as legal for deer muzzleloader season and black powder firearms loaded from the breech are legal.
Shotguns: 20 gauge or larger, firing a single rifled slug are legal.
Handguns: Centerfire handguns, minimum barrel length is four (4) inches, chambered for .24 caliber or larger and 100 grain or heavier soft-nosed bullet having an overall cartridge case length of 1 1/4 inches or longer are legal.
Archery: Equipment described as legal for deer archery season.
Illegal devices: Fully automatic firearms, silencers, laser sights and light enhancement devices (night scopes) are illegal.

Edit to add:

Silencers
Silencers may not be used to hunt game animals, game or nongame birds.
ODWC General Hunting Regs (http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/regs/huntregs3.htm)

wdlsguy
July 8, 2005, 01:57 PM
Game animals and game birds may be hunted with any legal firearm, EXCEPT:
- white-tailed deer, mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope may NOT be hunted with rimfire ammunition of any caliber.
- shotguns are the only legal firearm that may be used to hunt Eastern turkey during the spring Eastern turkey season (see County Listing). Rifles and handguns may not be used to hunt Eastern turkey.
- pellet guns and other air guns are NOT LEGAL.
- fully automatic firearms are NOT LEGAL.
- firearms equipped with silencers or sound-suppressing devices are NOT LEGAL.
- a shotgun is the only legal firearm for hunting migratory game birds and lesser prairie chicken (see Definitions - Legal Shotgun).

Nongame Animals (Non-Protected):
Any lawful firearm, pellet gun, or other air gun is legal.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/annual/hunt/means/index.phtml

Jay Kominek
July 8, 2005, 02:03 PM
Where is hunting with a suppressor or silencer legal? "Silencer" appears in the Colorado Revised Statutes in only two places. Where they define it, and where they say it is illegal to have one without a valid "permit or license."
The Division of Wildlife's web site says nothing about silencers, supressors or mufflers.
Thus, as a layperson, it seems to me that it is legal to use one in Colorado for hunting.

Zundfolge
July 8, 2005, 02:08 PM
One of the grand ironies is that if it weren't for the 1934 NFA (where suppressors where added as an afterthought) I would be willing to bet that there are several states (MA included) that would REQUIRE the use of suppressors and we'd all be complaining in these forums about how they eliminate the ability to carry a small concealable pistol :p


As for the "legitimacy" of the use of suppressors, I believe that people see suppressors as "evil" and having no "legitimate use for the common man" as a direct consequence of watching too many James Bond movies where suppressors are only for assassins. Time and time again we've had threads here complaining about the "Hollywoodization" of firearms and how that leads to stupid attitudes by antis and stupid laws (like the AWB).


Frankly a suppressor is the only NFA Item I really really want (as I couldn't afford to keep feeding a full auto).


My hearing is important to me, and in a self defense or food gathering operation I'd like to be able to keep my hearing protected.


Thus, as a layperson, it seems to me that it is legal to use one in Colorado for hunting.
Yet another reason I'm glad I moved from The People's Republic of Kansas to the rarefied air of the Rockys where a man can live as a free man :)
(even though I don't hunt...or own a suppressor...yet)

Daniel T
July 8, 2005, 02:36 PM
Nongame Animals (Non-Protected):
Any lawful firearm, pellet gun, or other air gun is legal.

Yup. When you're eradicating pest hogs, there are all sorts of plusses when you use a suppresor. Your neighbors don't complain. You keep your hearing. You don't scare the entire heard off somewhere you can't get to them, but that they'll come back from to continue to absolutely and totally destroy any field they can.

---

Tim, have you ever actually fired a suppressed firearm? Do you know how loud they actually are?

I've fired an array of guns with suppressors. Various .30 rifles (.30-30, .308, .30-06, .30 Carbine) with .30 cans and subsonic or full powered rounds, a 9mm Cobray M11 with both subsonic and full powered ammo, and a 92FS. None of them would have been very comfortable to fire without hearing protection, even the subsonic 9mm, which was the most quiet.

There's a good reason most people on this site refer to them as "suppressors" as opposed to "silencers": they still ain't quiet, they're just less loud.

Tim3256
July 8, 2005, 02:43 PM
Jax,
You're just determined to be mad at me, huh?
According to you...
Tim stated with his followup OPINION that he thought suppressors were not legitimate for non-MIL/non-LEO use.
I never said that. What I said was:
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

And I never did this:
he was making a judgement call about the legal appropriateness
nor did I claim my freedom extends thusly
While Tim is free to make decisions about *his* need/desire for a suppressor, his freedom does not extend to *my* need/ownership/use of one.

You may have thought I implied that, but that was not the intention, and I thought I cleared this up when I said:
I never meant to imply that I would deny to others what I see as unneccesary.

Also, I'll say it yet again. I wasn't addressing hunting. You're not paying attention:
I posted this,
Neither I, nor the original poster was referring to hunting. This is a self-defense issue
in response to this (from the original poster),
Would carrying a silenced pistol be practical? For a normal handgun it seems clunky and unwieldy but what if you had like a derringer or one of these? Why aren't there handguns out there on the market with integral silencers? That would be neat.

And Travis,
Are you aware that in some countries you are considered downright rude if you don't have a legal suppressor?
Are you aware that in some countries you are considered downright rude if you do not offer your wife to visiting guests as entertainment? Do you do this? "Hey, it's only polite, Honey. Now get in there and take one for the team, Babe!" That is just silly.

As for this...come on now.
If you are trying to do a little stealthy meat hunting...Your hunting shots will be like a dinner bell for a gang of bandits
What you're describing is murder. "Meat hunting"?, "hunting shots"? If I could do what you're suggesting, I would perform a stealthy egress. The situation you describe is so statistically improbable that it's (IMHO) foolish to spend valuable resources training for this virtual "no-win" scenario. Egress is the best option, suppressed or not, the BG can still scream his damn head off...that kinda gives me away anyhow, doesn't it. I really think you're reaching here.
Besides, once again, I was not talking about hunting, but apparently (your words, friend) you are.

I just asked a question. That's all. Geesh, you can unbunch your panties, now.

torpid
July 8, 2005, 03:13 PM
i have to agree with tim on the issue of carrying suppressed. it seems to me that you WANT to make lots of noise in a defense situation - to rattle your attacker and summon help as quickly as possible.

Yes!!!

In fact can we make them LOUDER?
Hopefully to the point of 100% deafening permanent damage to both shooter and assailant. After all nothing screams "HELP" like a permanent hearing damage.
The loudest sound possible is 194dB, let's aim for that- think of the improvement in both "rattling" and help solicitation!

Also, perhaps making it so the muzzle flash can somehow partially or permanently blind everyone within ten feet would be good too?
After all, nothing quite grabs the attention like brilliant flashing visuals that can be seen from space!


(yes, I'm silly)

:p

jlwatts3
July 8, 2005, 03:21 PM
Does anyone know why suppressors were added to the NFA? It was before Hollywood casted them in a bad light. Were criminals using them then?

Third_Rail
July 8, 2005, 03:51 PM
Poaching, or at least that was the reason given.


They weren't being used by poachers, but everyone was afraid they MIGHT be. Same deal why VT has them illegal, actually.

Jay Kominek
July 8, 2005, 05:56 PM
If you are trying to do a little stealthy meat hunting...Your hunting shots will be like a dinner bell for a gang of bandits
What you're describing is murder. "Meat hunting"?, "hunting shots"? If I could do what you're suggesting, I would perform a stealthy egress. The situation you describe is so statistically improbable that it's (IMHO) foolish to spend valuable resources training for this virtual "no-win" scenario. Egress is the best option, suppressed or not, the BG can still scream his damn head off... that kinda gives me away anyhow, doesn't it. I really think you're reaching here.
...hunting for food is murder? Boy howdy, if you think taking game is murder, you're probably in the wrong place.

Or, if you think that Travis is talking about hunting people, well then, you just need to read more carefully. He is talking about making sure you're not heard by people who'd like to kill you, while you are engaging in a perfectly moral activity.
Are you aware that in some countries you are considered downright rude if you do not offer your wife to visiting guests as entertainment? Do you do this? "Hey, it's only polite, Honey. Now get in there and take one for the team, Babe!" That is just silly. Ah yes, whoring one's wife is equivalent to spending nontrivial amounts of money so as to avoid discomforting others with EAR SHATTERING noises. If you can't see why it might be polite to not make noises which permenantly damage the hearing of people around you, well, hot tip, you might want to just give up on this thread. (And don't be surprised when your neighbors don't think too kindly of you for touching off the .50BMG in the back yard.)

If you're innocent of all wrong thinking and never meant any of the things which people are saying you meant, then, uh, how about a post along the lines of "gee whiz folks, it is now completely clear to me why a person would want to own a supressor," because if the legitimate answers given so far havn't convinced you, then I'm afraid most people here aren't going to believe the protestations.
I just asked a question. That's all. Geesh, you can unbunch your panties, now. No, you did not just ask a question. You also tossed in a bit of opinion afterwards, which is what people are taking issue with. And I don't think you're helping yourself with your responses, in particular the unbunching of panties.

Zundfolge
July 8, 2005, 06:58 PM
Tim3256, fire any handgun larger then a .32 indoors with no hearing protection and if you still are of the opinion that there's no legitimate use for suppressors then we'll just have to agree to disagree :D

duck_god827
July 8, 2005, 09:10 PM
On this subject is the is there a place I can get information on which states are legal and which are not? Also what permits and laws there are that need to be observed and followed.

Jay Kominek
July 8, 2005, 09:41 PM
On this subject is the is there a place I can get information on which states are legal and which are not? Also what permits and laws there are that need to be observed and followed. There are old threads on this. Search for them, and in particular, read what 444 has written, as he actually knows what he is talking about. For example, this thread (http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=1786594&postcount=14). http://www.titleii.com/ and http://www.gem-tech.com/ have some relevent legal information, as well.

Nick_90
July 9, 2005, 05:43 PM
A sound suppressor permits me to shoot .22 in my back garden without alarming the neighbours...

tyme
July 9, 2005, 08:10 PM
Tim, don't you see something just a little bit wrong with this attitude?
"Firing a gun in self defense is rare enough that if I have to do so, I should have to live with the resultant minor to moderate hearing damage."

If someone can carry around a silenced firearm, or keep one in the car or on a nightstand, why do you care? Given the propensity of western countries to move toward socialized medicine, you should be thankful they're doing what they can to reduce your tax burden in the unfortunate event they have to defend themselves.

thatguy
July 9, 2005, 08:52 PM
eurohacker, how old are you? Do you have any interests other than sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, silencers, killing people and anti-personnel ammunition?

Whoever claimed a silencer reduces recoil in a 308 by 90%: Sorry, I have to see that.

Travis McGee
July 10, 2005, 02:07 AM
Tim,
If you want to analogize the courtesy of quiet guns at ranges such as in Finland, to customs in some countries where you claim it is normal to let strangers boff your wife, I think you are demonstrating a rather loosely connected mind.

As far as the SHTF scenario, where did you pull murder out of your hat? I was suggesting that if you wanted to hunt (hunt: game animals, for meat to eat) with bad guys in the vicinity, you might want to use a suppressor, to not announce your presence to them with loud shots.

How you hallucinated that into "murder" is beyond me. Probably the same part of your brain which analogizes quieter guns at the range to letting strangers do your wife.

Travis McGee
July 10, 2005, 02:10 AM
Jay Kominek: Thanks for the assist, buddy! GMTA!

Tim3256
July 12, 2005, 10:35 AM
eurohacker, how old are you? Do you have any interests other than sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, silencers, killing people and anti-personnel ammunition?
Exactly...



Travis
Tim, a SHTF scenario is when you will want to use a suppressor the MOST. If you are trying to do a little stealthy meat hunting, you will not want to attract the attention of the 15 armed marauders who have recently "moved in" to the estate down the road. Your hunting shots will be like a dinner bell for a gang of bandits. You don't want them to even know you exist. They will not be frightened off by a solo guy shooting now and then, they are gang bangers! They were raised around gun fights! Your unsuppressed shots will attract their attention, which is what you DON'T want.
You say "SHTF" and "meat hunting" in the same breath, here...(?)
You say "hunting shots will be like a dinner bell far a gang of bandits...they will not be frightened off...they are gang-bangers..."
My apologies if I misinterpreted, but you seemed to go back and forth between two entirely different situations. I don't hunt in urban areas infested with gang-bangers, maybe I live a sheltered life. When I hunt, I'm not trying to hide my existence from humans, only the game. I agree that it is wise to be as transparent as possible to gang members. Again, those two worlds never meet in my area, so perhaps the scenario you outline is not as farfetched as I had thought. I apologize.

As far as the hearing protection/courtesy noise reduction arguments go, I give, you folks have turned me around on this one.

My comments should have been aimed more directly at the original poster. Frankly, I find erohacker's postings to be a little too "enthusiastic". This is an individual who shows no apparent interest in genuine game hunting. The poster seems obsessed with anti-personnel weaponry and ammunition of types that are much more appropriate for military operations than personal protection/sport shooting/hunting. I'm not even sure that I want our soldiers to be that "eager" about anti-personnel shooting.

I sincerely apologize to all who I may have offended; either through ignorance of the subject matter, or by overstating my arguments. I must admit, I am fond of debate, particularly in areas which have largely justifiable positions on both sides of an issue. I certainly will accept my portion of the blame for allowing the debate to descend into a lower form of communication.
With that being said, I hope we can all agree that honest disagreements are healthy. I certainly harbor no ill will towards anyone. So there's the olive branch, perhaps one day we can meet over a pitcher beer/juleps/sweet tea instead of an argument. :cool:

Travis McGee
July 12, 2005, 08:11 PM
Where did I mention "urban?" I didn't. My point is that during a period of social upheaval and marauding gangs ("SHTF") you will want to be extra stealthy to avoid attracting the attention of said maruading gangs. If you need to take a deer or a hog to feed your family, you will want to do so as quietly as possible. For this reason, a bow hunting rig would also be a smart addition to any "SHTF" rig. Also, in a for real SHTF scenario, folks will have to decide for themselves if they want to put an improvised "can" suppressor on the end of this or that firearm, so it will be smart to arm oneself with knowledge of suppressors today.

Travis McGee
July 12, 2005, 08:12 PM
Tim:
PS: I salute you for making amends above.
Cheers,
Matt/Travis

HI express
July 12, 2005, 09:02 PM
I am not an LEO, but in my job capacity, I was often assigned to the officers who served warrants on gang houses and other houses where illegal activity occurred.

In the infancy stage of this "task force" they didn't know where to place our inspectors. So as assigned, we were placed real close to the entry teams.

One night we were assigned to an illicit gambling house, also known for distributing illegal drugs, and this house also acted as a source for midnight shootings.

So here I was behind the entry team when the Lt. leading the team signed that there were dogs loose in the rear yard. In the dim light I counted 7..looked like Rottweillers. He picked up his suppressed MP5 and moved forward, when one of them started to charge. The Lt. fired a short burst..the dog stopped and walked in a circle. It walked into the corner of the yard and laid down. (eventually it bled out)

Same thing with the second dog.

The armorer checked it the next day, but the Lt. had to go to Virginia for interagency training. That's when he found out from the FBI that they had run into the same problems with their suppressed MP-5s.

Turned out the suppressors were tightened down too low and it slowed down the bullet and the cycling of the weapon enough so that a 9mm did not act like a typical 9mm. They were acting like subsonic rounds.

Take it for what it's worth. They did fix the problem right away but suppressors aren't what everyone thinks they are.

BeLikeTrey
July 13, 2005, 08:18 AM
basically slows the bullet to something more like .380 balistics than 9mm. the ports in the barrel are what do the slowing, all the can does is trap gas and heat. Now, being supressed, there is backpressure and the SD tends to foul out easier with residue etc.

Marshall
July 13, 2005, 09:55 AM
Where did I mention "urban?" I didn't. My point is that during a period of social upheaval and marauding gangs ("SHTF") you will want to be extra stealthy to avoid attracting the attention of said maruading gangs. If you need to take a deer or a hog to feed your family, you will want to do so as quietly as possible.

Travis, do you invision this happening anytime soon? Where do you live that would have marauding gangs where deer and hogs reside and also where you can shoot legally with neighbors around? I see you have put down San Diego.

GarrettJ
July 31, 2005, 12:37 AM
Would carrying a silenced pistol be practical? For a normal handgun it seems clunky and unwieldy but what if you had like a derringer or one of these (http://www.serbu.com/buttmaster.htm) ?
Yes, it would probably still be kind of "clunky". I have this same can & gun, but I never bothere to get the barrel on the Stinger threaded. Neat idea, though.
http://www.cornbread.com/~jhinkle/CACstinger1.JPG

GarrettJ
July 31, 2005, 12:57 AM
Where is hunting with a suppressor or silencer legal? In my state it is surely not legal therefore has never crossed my mind.
It's legal in Utah. I use one because I like to be able to hear what is going on around me, but don't want to go deaf. Earplugs make it hard to hear my surroundings. Electronic muffs work well, but are really uncomfortable when it's hot out.

The only reason I can see for using them for hunting in a state where they are not legal would be to make it easier to poach, hunt at night or hunt out of season. What am I missing?
By your reasoning, we should outlaw hunting with a bow & arrow. Or we should ban bows completely. After all, they often make less noise than a suppressed firearm, making it "easier to poach, hunt at night or hunt out of season."

Kenneth Lew
July 31, 2005, 03:13 AM
Hi Express,

The armorer checked it the next day, but the Lt. had to go to Virginia for interagency training. That's when he found out from the FBI that they had run into the same problems with their suppressed MP-5s.

Turned out the suppressors were tightened down too low and it slowed down the bullet and the cycling of the weapon enough so that a 9mm did not act like a typical 9mm. They were acting like subsonic rounds.

Take it for what it's worth. They did fix the problem right away but suppressors aren't what everyone thinks they are.

What the hell are you talking about? I do not know of any 9mm suppressor on a standard MP5 that reduces the velocity of a std. 9mm rd. down to subsonic.

Are you sure you are not talking about a MP5SD? The barrel of the MP5SD is ported to allow the bleed off of gases to reduce the velocity of 9mm down to subsonic.

Kenneth Lew

GarrettJ
July 31, 2005, 04:52 PM
Turned out the suppressors were tightened down too low and it slowed down the bullet and the cycling of the weapon enough so that a 9mm did not act like a typical 9mm. They were acting like subsonic rounds.
As others have noted, the MP5-SD does slow the bullets down to subsonic velocities through barrel porting. (nothing to "turn down too low". It's just how the gun is designed.)

This was done so that standard 115 or 124 gr. ammo could be used, and still not produce a sonic crack. This makes for a pretty quiet gun. But as you noted, terminal balistics were less than impressive. H&K recommends against using the heavier 147 gr. bullets in the MP5-SD because of unacceptable pressure levels for that particular set-up. (has something to do with the angle on the roller-locking mechanism being different for proper functioning than with other MP5s.)

I understand that the British had the same problems with their intergrally suppressed Stens during and after WWII.

I have read where some SWAT teams relegated their MP5-SDs to "guard dog removal" only. And even here they had problems.

A better set-up would be to use a "traditional" MP5 with a muzzle can. These could then safely utilize the subsonic 147 gr. ammo. This would not produce a sonic crack, but would impart more energy on target.

LiquidTension
July 31, 2005, 05:27 PM
I don't hunt anymore, but if I did I'd rather use a suppressed weapon. I'm not a poacher, and there is no reason that I shouldn't be able to save my hearing just because I'm out in the woods.

I fully plan on purchasing an integrally suppressed MkII (or maybe just having mine built into one) when funds allow for no other reason than it is cool. I am not an assassin or any other type of criminal, therefore there is no legitimate reason for me not be be able to own one. Plus, if you live in a residential area and want to do some plinking, a suppressed .22 rifle could be fired without alarming the neighbors - as long as you have an appropriate backstop and it is legal in your area, of course.

ctdonath
July 31, 2005, 10:29 PM
Chalk up another one pro-suppressor.

This notion that "suppressor = evil" is absurd.

Suppressors...
- Save hearing
- Improve accuracy
- Reduce recoil
- Reduce noise pollution/annoyance
- Reduce unwanted attention

They are also hardly "silencers", reducing the noise only from ear-damaging loud (>160dB) to just plain loud (120-150dB ... which ranges from "planes on runway" loud to "threshold of pain" loud).

If you enjoyed reading about "Questions on silencers and sub-sonic ammo." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!