Sound Moderators


PDA






JLelli
June 19, 2007, 01:09 AM
We all want the federal government to deregulate the sale of sound supressors, but people tend to get freaked out when you start talking about "silencers" or "supressors", and that tends to make a rational discussion about quieter shooting difficult to start. Therefore, why not call them a more PC name, like "sound moderators", as this firm in New Zealand (http://www.husssh.co.nz/details.html) does? It is a more accurate term then silencer, and it has a better connotation than supressor. Who would object to a moderator?

On a related note, the can in that link sells for NZ$59, which is about US$45. Where are all the $45 sound moderators here? The cheapest I've seen Stateside is $400, and that's before the $200 tax.

If you enjoyed reading about "Sound Moderators" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Dravur
June 19, 2007, 10:57 AM
but, considering most of our reps wouldn't know a suppressor from a shoulder thingy, renaming the package probably won't help.

However, I agree that suppressors whould be off the NFA list and sold over the counter like a pack of gum.

I looked at the husshh suppressor and it is made from plastic, hence the price. I do not know of any suppressors made in this country that are made from plastic. Interesting Idea, however.

jselvy
June 19, 2007, 11:01 AM
I think that the NFA is unconstitutional and should be struck from the books. It is even possible that the original authors of the second amendment meant for it to trump the interstate commerce clause that is at the heart of the NFA.

Jefferson

Titan6
June 19, 2007, 11:18 AM
Suppressor is the more accurate term.

Suppresors are expensive here because they are mostly hand made and therefore labor intensive. Many are also made for the government and they are not always the best stewards of resources. There is no doubt someone could make a $49 suppresor in the US but that would not include adapting the barrel. In the US the market would likely not be large enough to afford an investment in the capital equipment required.

Telperion
June 19, 2007, 11:43 AM
Move suppressors to Title I with Federal preemption! (El Tejon impression)

On a related note, the can in that link sells for NZ$59, which is about US$45. Where are all the $45 sound moderators here? The cheapest I've seen Stateside is $400, and that's before the $200 tax.I've seen .22 LR suppressors for $250. I'd submit U.S.-made suppressors are of higher build quality. They are made to be durable since the NFA transfer process is slow and expensive. The model you linked to is made of plastic and it is probably a semi-consumable grade item like a magazine.

alucard0822
June 19, 2007, 12:08 PM
most european countries, even the ones with fairly draconian gun laws actually encourage the use of what they call moderators. At worst they are titled the same way a firearm is, and often times it is considered rude to not use one. Here, I guess the lawmakers are worried that mafia types that traffic in drugs and machine guns (wonder why the laws against them didn't work?) would be secretly assasinating people left and right, but somehow, by nothing short of a miracle the only laws they will follow are "sensible gun laws". It's kind of surprising in this day and age of nanny state safety laws, and lawsuit happy folk that a device that does nothing more than reduce noise to safe and tolerable levels (by no means silent) requires a mountain of paperwork, the blessing of state LE, a $200 infringement stamp, and if you are lucky you can pick it up a couple months later.

Zak Smith
June 19, 2007, 12:53 PM
There are four main factors which play into high sound suppressor ("silencer") costs in the US:

1. Lack of economy of scale. They are not legal in all 50 states. Many people think they are outright illegal everywhere. The paperwork hassle and $200 stamp deter many (though thanks to inflation $200 is becoming more trivial over time). Since the target market is small, large economies of scale do not arise.

2. The law requires that someone named on the SOT be present when many suppressor parts are manufactured. This works against outsourcing most suppressor parts during manufacture and the SOT ends up having to make just about everything in-house.

3. Desired lifetime of the product (like Telperion said). People look at getting the tax stamp and approved Form 4 as a one-time thing, and don't want their suppressor to wear out. This pushes manufacturers to make very durable and high-end suppressors that will last basically forever.

4. The SOT framework for legal NFA manufacturing has high licensing cost overhead. This limits the ability of the general public to come up with better and cheaper designs. (Form 1's also prevent the manufacture of "extra" parts which might be useful in honing a design. Having extra baffles around is a no-no.)

-z

Prince Yamato
June 19, 2007, 03:05 PM
I say who cares what they're called. I don't want a sound moderator for my sporting rifle, I want a silencer for my assault weapon! :D Politcal correctness is so 90s. Look, if someone wants to kill someone with a gun and muffle the sound, they'll use a freakin' pillow... or just stab them or strangle them instead. Push that point home and say that the rest of us want our hearing and don't want to pay $200 (though, as someone pointed out, I think that that amount will become trivial over the coming years).

Alphazulu6
June 20, 2007, 02:15 AM
cutting out the noise is a good thing. Using Europe as an example with anything firearm oriented is a travesty. The government imposted $200 tax is rediculous and really just plain taking advantage of the law biding citizen.

.cheese.
June 20, 2007, 03:03 AM
suppressor.... that's a thing that goes up right? ;)

748
June 20, 2007, 05:48 AM
"people tend to get freaked out when you start talking about silencers"
Yep.
"Many people think they are outright illegal"
That too

Prince Yamato
June 20, 2007, 01:33 PM
suppressor.... that's a thing that goes up right?

no no! That's the barrel shroud... geez...

Henry Bowman
June 20, 2007, 02:01 PM
Imagine if suppressors for cars (and 18 wheel trucks) were illegal in many states or very difficult to obtain.

Fosbery
June 20, 2007, 02:43 PM
In the Uk we call them the same thing, sound moderators. They're pretty accepted here, but more for the purposes of protecting non-gun types from the distant sound of gunfire than for protecting shooters' hearing.

damien
June 20, 2007, 03:50 PM
HAHA. I love their not-very-PC front page.

http://www.husssh.co.nz/

If you enjoyed reading about "Sound Moderators" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!