[Oleg Volk]

I am considering getting a can for pistol practice. The current top choices are Ruger Mk.2 for $1K and Walther P22 for about $650. The Ruger looks like a regular bull barrel and has longer sight radius. It also seems more durable. P22 would fit smaller hands (important for teaching) and the can can be removed and placed on another gun. Would people with experience in this area please advise on the priorities of these various considerations.

[NMshooter]

Detachable cans may be used on more than one firearm.

Since it is the suppressor that is registered, not the firearm it goes on this may affect your choice.

Hope that helps.

[Werewolf]

I'm confused... :confused:

$650 to $1000 for sound suppressor that at one time could be purchased for about $2 from a catalog or in any hardware store.

Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

AND I understand even the best silencers wear out after a few hundred rounds and that the parts to fix/refurb them are considered controlled too thus rendering a suppressor essentially useless once it wears out unless one wants to pay $200 fee to the ATF for repair parts????????

[waterhouse]

I'm thought about the same thing a couple weeks ago. I'll be getting a can and then threading both my buckmark pistol and buckmark rile so I can use it on both.

Werewolf, I'm no expert but I know there are some .308 suppressors with thousands of rounds through them, and I haven't heard of anyone wearing out their .22 cans. Also, I think only the actual tube part of the can has the serial number on it, so any internal parts can be replaced.

[carebear]

The Ruger integral cans get sent back to the manufacturer for refurbishment. Not sure about cost but they treat it as maintenance.

[Zak Smith]

I have shot the P22 with the screw-on 'can. It's a nice little package. That you can use it on other 22's is icing on the cake.

[Dr.Rob]

The 'can' itself is registered, not the guts... I mean the guts are like washers and felt pads and rubber rings, right?

[Zak Smith]

Most modern suppressors are sealed, e.g. Gemtech, JET, OPS, etc.

[TimboKhan]

Zak Smith,

How is it your in Fort Collins, have made 3500 posts and today is the first day I have noticed you on the boards, lol....

[Rob1035]

werewolf- i'm with ya, in finland, suppressors are like any other accessory, you just buy them. I'm sure that drives the prices down :rolleyes:

[Old Fuff]

If you can find one, an older Hi-Standard has a no-tools, instant detachable system for removing the barrel. Therefore you can have a second conventional barrel and switch back and forth.

The same can be said about the Browning BenchMark and other .22 pistols where the barrel can be removed as part of regular field stripping.

The Walther P-22 is designed and fabricated to meet a low price-point, and as such uses some questionable alloy parts. Do a search on "P-22" and you will find an number of threads on this issue.

I don't know if you would carry the Ruger with the chamber loaded or not, but keep in mind that there is no half-cock notch or ledge if the hammer should follow down.

[Zak Smith]

how is it your in Fort Collins, have made 3500 posts and today is the first day I have noticed you on the boards, lol....
Good question. Drop me a PM or email sometime.

[GarrettJ]

I'm confused...

$650 to $1000 for sound suppressor that at one time could be purchased for about $2 from a catalog or in any hardware store.That is the price for an intergral .22 unit. They require much more labor and hand fitting than a comparitive muzzle can. And a good muzzle can will be as effective as an intergral.

Now, figure inflation for $2 in 1936. It wasn't uncommon for people to make less than that in a week. So $2 went a lot farther then.

Second, in the '20s & 30s Maxim and Parker-Hale were mass-producing cans that were relatively inexpensive once the stamping machines were paid for.

Modern cans use higher quality (more expensive) materials (think stainless, ceramic and inconel). They are also produced on a much smaller scale, so the individual unit will be more expensive.

AND I understand even the best silencers wear out after a few hundred rounds and that the parts to fix/refurb them are considered controlled too thus rendering a suppressor essentially useless once it wears out unless one wants to pay $200 fee to the ATF for repair parts????????You are misinformed. Modern cans have no parts that wear out. As long as the barrel is correctly threaded, and does not come loose, the bullet will never touch anything inside the can. Some older cans used nomex "wipes" that the bullet would shoot through and seal once the bullet hahd exited. These could be replaced.

Muzzle cans are nice, because they are pretty versitile. I buy one suppressor and I can put it on any gun in the appropriate caliber.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/GarrettJ/22-45.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v632/GarrettJ/DSC01368.jpg

[Zak Smith]

In addition, there is no hassle to send a 'can back to the manufacturer for repair.

[444]

There are pros and cons with each choice: obviously.
For the .22, I chose to go integral with both the Ruger Mk.II, the Ruger 10/22 rifle, and the LRM M-169 suppressed 9mm upper. The main reason, you already mentioned: when someone sees the weapon, it isn't obvious that it is suppressed. Many people in this country including MOST gun owners are totally misinformed about suppressors and their ownership. Therefore, it is much easier to simply fly under the radar and avoid any potential hassle. Let's say I got pulled over by the police and it comes to their attention that I have a firearm in the vehicle. This isn't a big deal, but would be a bigger deal if they realized that it was suppressed. The reason is that they are uninformed and thus would make a bigger deal out of it. When someone sees me at a range, people don't think anything of me shooting my Mk. II. I believe that if they realized it was suppressed, they would then question/bother me about it where now, they just leave me alone. If I wanted to take the integrally suppressed .22 on an airplane (checked of course and following all the current legal proceedures), I would just not mention that it was suppressed and no one would likely be the wiser: again, it wouldn't really matter legally but they would almost certainly make a bigger deal about it if they knew it was suppressed................ I think the pistol looks cleaner than one that has been threaded. You don't have to worry about supersonic ammo with the integral suppressor: the suppressor drops the velocity down to subsonic speeds, therefore you can shoot any .22LR ammo you want and get the same level of noise. The WalMart stuff is just as quiet as Ely Tenex. You can choose your ammo based on performance rather than muzzle velocity.
The big plus with having a muzzle can is the fact that you can use it on multiple platforms including rifles. You will have to have each gun you want to use it on threaded (this usually includes a cap that covers the threads when you are not using the suppressor). This is something that most people just gloss over in discussions such as this one. For some people it isn't a big deal: but for those already complaining about the cost of suppressor ownership, having each weapon threaded is going to be a BIG deal. Most suppressor manufacturers want to thread the barrels themselves, or have a gunsmith they recommend do the work. The reason is that the threads must be concentric with the bore. If not done correctly, you will have the bullet destroy your suppressor and it will not be covered under warrenty UNLESS YOU USED THEM OR THEIR GUNSMITH to do the threading work. If you try to go cheap and do it yourself or have some Joe down the block do it and you have a baffle strike: you are totally on your own. The cost of the suppressor, the cost of the tax stamp, and all the time you spend waiting on the transfer will go up in smoke because you thought you would save a little cash by doing it half baked. Having something threaded is usually about $100 give or take not including shipping. So, it sounds real good that you can use the muzzle can on multiple weapons, but realize this is most likely going to cost you a significant amount of money if you thread everything you own or something (I must own a dozen or more different .22s: that is over a grand in gunsmith fees for threading). You will have to worry about subsonic ammo if you want the quietest possible report. You do have the option of using the gun without the suppressor, although I am not sure why you would want to.

FWIW, I went with the AAC Phoenix Mk.II. I honestly believe this is the best integrally suppressed .22 on the market. I don't see any problem with the size of the grip frame and small hands. I have owned a Ruger .22 autoloading handgun continuously since I was 9 years old and never once thought the grip frame was too big for my hands.
Also FWIW, I own muzzle cans in other calibers, so I am familiar with both concepts and I much prefer the integral suppressor. Especially on a .22.

[Sven]

Decisions, Decisions... Oleg you are very lucky to have such a decision to make.

-Behind the Iron Curtain

[GarrettJ]

444 makes some very good points. I have to agree with all of them except:
If I wanted to take the integrally suppressed .22 on an airplane (checked of course and following all the current legal proceedures), I would just not mention that it was suppressed and no one would likely be the wiser: again, it wouldn't really matter legally but they would almost certainly make a bigger deal about it if they knew it was suppressedI have flown a number of times with muzzle cans, both attached and seperated from the gun. They were locked in the case with the guns. They never drew any extra comment. I get the occasional TSA screener telling me I have some cool toys, but he would as likely be refering to the guns as to the cans.

[444]

Because I mention the possibility, doesn't guarentee that it is going to happen in every case, every time.
I am a fanatical believer in the idea that IF something CAN go wrong, it will. Every possible chance I have to tilt the balance in my favor, is something I am interested in.
Just because you got away with it doesn't mean I will. Based on my prior life experiences I feel quite confident that if there is only one person detained for this in the history of the world, it will be me, and it will be at the worst possible time and take a maximum effort to correct.
Murphy was an optimist.
:uhoh: