Silecers, folding stocks and flash suppressors...oh my!


PDA






DontBurnMyFlag
October 19, 2005, 10:52 AM
Im sure we have all had an argument about assault weapons. Most gunnies I know say that a silencer is to protect the hearing of the shooter, a flash suppressor is to protect the eyes of a shooter and a folding stock is for compact storage...

I hate the fact that the government restricts such things. Its not about the need for a gun, or what you need on the gun, but the fact that owning a gun is your right.

However, I try not to be naive. I wont use those arguments listed above. I will say the following:

Silencers - I say they were created to use your gun silently and stealthy. Whatever you do with it, does not change what they were intended for.

Flash suppressors - To keep the bad guy from seeing where you shooting from

Folding stocks - increased mobility in close quarters and while being transported. compact storage is an added bonus


While, eye and hearing protection are arguments I hear often, I dont intend on using them. The govt has no right to restrict such things on a weapon and doing so is just...well wrong. However, if Im asked what these accessories are for on a gun, I will tell them what I listed above. If they dont like it, thats too bad, thats what they were made for. Not what I use it for however.

Am I wrong to chose my argument like this? I dont use these arguments to get my point across, I just tell em like it is, and if they cant take it, I hold out a trashbucket for them to :barf: in.

If you enjoyed reading about "Silecers, folding stocks and flash suppressors...oh my!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
boofus
October 19, 2005, 10:55 AM
How many silenced weapons have you fired? They sound like gun shots. Not loud enough to make your ears ring for the next 5 minutes, but they still sound unmistakeably like gunfire and they WILL damage your hearing unless you wear earmuffs in addition.

The main bonus from suppressors is the total elimination of muzzle flash. The sound reduction isn't very much. How many people can tell the difference between 130dB and 165dB? They will both make your ears hurt.

DontBurnMyFlag
October 19, 2005, 11:01 AM
True, Im not trying to get into logistics or anything. Im also not trying to sound like I dont see flash suppressors and silencers as safety accessories. I recognize those arguments. I just dont use them.

If I am arguing with a fellow student or something along those lines, and they ask me about assault weapons and their accessories, I tell em what they're for. They then say, "why would you need something like that?" To which I go on my rant about not neccessarily needing anything but that fact that its a right to own it.

Third_Rail
October 19, 2005, 11:06 AM
Maxim's son invented silencers so people wouldn't have to deal with being deaf. Certainly not silent (unless we're talking DeLisle or .22), but not as loud.

Flash suppresors... the difference really isn't that much. It's certainly not so people can't see the muzzle flash - because it's still plenty visible. Plenty.

Janitor
October 19, 2005, 11:11 AM
Am I wrong to chose my argument like this? I dont use these arguments to get my point across, I just tell em like it is, and if they cant take it, I hold out a trashbucket for them to in.
Don't know. You tell me ... How is using these arguments working out for you, and for the laws in your state?

WT
October 19, 2005, 11:17 AM
Check the most recent American Rifleman. They have an interesting article dealing with folding stock carbines utilized by American paratroopers in WWII.

Exposure
October 19, 2005, 12:09 PM
As has already been stated silencers only serve to reduce the report of weapon not make it silent. Silenced weapons can still be pretty darn loud!

Flash suppressors are designed to keep the shooter from being blinded in low light situations. They do more diverting than suppressing. The muzzle flash will still be plenty visible to someone you are shooting at.

On the folded stocks I think you are right, it is more of a convenience item than anything else.

Justin
October 19, 2005, 12:15 PM
Have you ever...

A)Shot a suppressed rifle?

B)Fired a rifle equipped with a flash suppressor at night?

C)Actually tried to use a rifle with a stock that is in the folded position?


:scrutiny:

RavenVT100
October 19, 2005, 12:34 PM
A flash suppressor is to keep the shooter, you, from being blinded. It has nothing to do with the "bad guys" not being able to see you in the dark. That's ridiculous. Anyone who claims this has obviously not seen the two foot long tongue of flame that spews forth from an M1A being fired at night. The flash is diverted into discrete columns and ensures that the sight picture is not interrupted.

Folding stocks are designed for when the rifle has to be held in a compact manner, such as for paratroopers or personnel who climb into or out of armored vehicles. It has nothing to do with concealment.

Anti-self-defense propaganda groups have fabricated their own reasons for these features to exist, in order to advance their agenda. They are 100% factually incorrect.

FNFiveSeven
October 19, 2005, 12:37 PM
it drives me nuts when everyone in the shooting industry keeps trying to pretend that several guns, including the AR-15, M1A, etc. are not designed for shooting and killing humans. Weapons that kill humans are the ones that are protected by the 2nd amendment (what do you think a militia is for?)

The main advantage of a silencer is that it allows you to shoot something without being noticed (audibly or visibly). Sure, some silenced weapons are loud, but how about a silenced .22? Or bolt .300 Whisper? Safety?! C'mon, I've been shooting unsilenced weapons for years without any hearing damage... it's called ear plugs.

Flash suppressors? I don't know about you, but I can't see the flash from an AR with a Phantom flash suppressor whether I'm shooting the rifle or standing next to it. If I was shooting at somebody at night and didn't want them to find me, you can bet I'd like to have a good flash supressor (or even better, a real can).

Justin:

Yes to all three of your questions. And shooting a rifle with the stock collapsed is possible, especially if you are using an IR laser and aiming at night, in which case it doesn't even matter if the stock is extended or not. BTW, shooting with NV and an IR laser combined with a silencer is probably the best way to go about shooting without being noticed AT ALL.

Oh yeah, high capacity magazines (yes, that's right, high capacity, not "normal" capacity) are great for combat too. I don't need high caps for target shooting, I don't need them for hunting, but you will need them if you get in a gun fight. The US military has learned this lesson the hard way, over and over again... and now we're issuing that uses 30 round mags and can use 100 round drums.

Oh BTW, .50 cals... yeah, they're great for taking out hard targets at both short and VERY long range. If you wanted to take out an oil tanker, armored car, or APC the .50 BMG would be my choice. The abundance of AP rounds available for the .50 is also a nice added bonus, adding further destructive potential to an already devestating weapon. Want to take out a target at 2000 meters? You better believe the .50 would be my first choice.

Let's dispense with the BS and just speak the truth. If we keep playing games dodging the truth, we're just as guilty of disinformation as the VPC and HCI.

ID_shooting
October 19, 2005, 12:42 PM
I can't comment on surpessors as I just do not know thier history, as for flash supressors though, I must say you are completely wrong. They are not "flash hiders" as the antis would claim, but they are supressors. They are for the sole purpose of reducing the loss of ones night vision while firing. No more, no less. In fact, one thing many years in the Army tought me was that the bird-cage supressors on the M-16s made a nice star pattern that told the enemy exactly where you are. Anyone who claims that flash supressors make it so people can't see the muzzle flash have never seen a night fire take place.

Mute
October 19, 2005, 12:42 PM
Yes but so what? How many criminals actually seek out these features and more importantly, how has legislation prevented them from using these features?

What!!?? Criminals still use them after they've been banned!? I'm shocked and appalled! :rolleyes:

444
October 19, 2005, 12:51 PM
So the military is using suppressors to protect the soldier's hearing ?

If your suppressor is still loud, you need to buy another suppressor.
If you think that a suppressor has to make the gunshot totally go away to accomplish it's goal, you might want to rethink that.

boofus
October 19, 2005, 01:17 PM
I think removing the muzzle flash is more of a benefit to the troops with suppressors than the 25-30db reduction in sound. Even with subsonic ammo it's nowhere near mall ninja stealth silent.

The SWR HEMS2 I have is supposed to be one of the best suppressors money can buy. So I don't think buying another one will make the gun any quieter. I usually shoot it indoors so maybe the echos make it seem louder than it actually is.

Justin
October 19, 2005, 01:19 PM
it drives me nuts when everyone in the shooting industry keeps trying to pretend that several guns, including the AR-15, M1A, etc. are not designed for shooting and killing humans. Weapons that kill humans are the ones that are protected by the 2nd amendment (what do you think a militia is for?)


And just how many fence sitters do you think are swayed to our side with this argument? :confused:

The main advantage of a silencer is that it allows you to shoot something without being noticed (audibly or visibly).
If congress were debating removing suppressors from being NFA regulated items, and they called on you to testify on behalf of the gun culture, is this the argument you would use?

The bottom line is this: Unless things have gone very, very wrong, the vast majority of gun owners are never going to use their firearms to kill people. Explicitly basing arguments for RKBA on the need to kill people is only going to alienate those who are somewhat progun or lukewarm on the issue.

Let's dispense with the BS and just speak the truth. If we keep playing games dodging the truth, we're just as guilty of disinformation as the VPC and HCI. How is pointing out that there are legitimate peaceful, recreational uses for these weapons and accessories BS? Just because one chooses to play up such aspects does not make one guilty of disinformation. Spin, perhaps, but compared to HCI and the VPC who regularly pull "statistics" and "scientific studies" out of thin air, that's a venial sin.

As Teddy Roosevelt put it, "Speak softly and carry a big stick."

FNFiveSeven
October 19, 2005, 01:29 PM
And just how many fence sitters do you think are swayed to our side with this argument?

So it's OK to lie (by omission or otherwise) to further your political agenda? The truth should be something we can cling to, something which seperates us from the VPC, etc.

If you can't defend guns for what the really are, that's fine. But don't lie about it just to get what you want out of congress.

Sure, guns have recreational uses, sprorting uses, etc. But that not their PRIMARY purpose, you know it, I know it, and the "fence sitter crowd" knows it too. How many fence sitters are you going to convince when they find out you are lying to them?

boofus
October 19, 2005, 01:32 PM
I don't see how any of those statements are untrue. If you are Delta Force you'll be using your suppressor to eliminate flash and make your weapon a little quieter when you kill your enemy.

If you are Billy 'Cooter' Bob you will use your silencer at the range for fun or on the farm to make it a little quieter so you and your neighbors don't suffer hearing damage when you shoot a snake.

Both legitimate uses. If you are writing a post directed towards Delta Force members and/or mall ninjas you use the first argument. If you are trying to persuade regular people like Billy Bob you use the 2nd. Neither are lies.

:confused:

Some people use their Toyota to drive to ballet and operas. Other people use their same model of Toyota to drive to pro-wrestling events and gun shows. Now is one side 'lying' about the true purpose of their car??

Justin
October 19, 2005, 01:37 PM
I'll note that you didn't answer my question.

Where has anyone from our side ever denied that firearms are an effective tool for extricating oneself from a violent encounter? If Wayne LaPierre or the Bennelli corporation were actually saying things like "Yes, the Bennelli M1 Super 90 is not an effective weapon for home defense. You'd be much better off with a plastic spork and a halloween mask" then your point about lying might very well be valid.

But that simply isn't the case.



*edit*

Boofus, well put.

If you enjoyed reading about "Silecers, folding stocks and flash suppressors...oh my!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!