Silencers/suppressors


PDA






Grassman
December 25, 2008, 12:17 AM
What's the legality on silencers? Do you have to pay a tax stamp, or are they illegal? I really think they would be great for varmint hunting, for obvious reasons. I have a Remington 700 in 22-250 that I would like to suppress. Or should I just shove a potato on the end of my barrel?:confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Silencers/suppressors" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kind of Blued
December 25, 2008, 01:48 AM
Google 1934 National Firearms Act and see for yourself. Wikipedia's page is pretty good.

Gunnerpalace
December 25, 2008, 03:07 AM
http://www.ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=6&f=20

Third pinned result might be what you are looking for, lots of good info too. Good luck don't know if the spud will help at all though.

acpchuck
December 25, 2008, 10:39 AM
This web site has tons of info. http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/

Legality depends upon your state laws. Federal law allows ownership of a suppressor after completing BATF paperwork and paying the $200 tax.

While a potato may quiet a gun (concern about it being a bore obstruction) your accuracy will be zilch.

Grassman
December 25, 2008, 10:58 AM
I was really just kidding about the potato.....

ScottsGT
December 25, 2008, 11:06 AM
In a nut shell, yes, they are legal. IF YOUR STATE ALLOWS THEM. Find what you want, find a title II dealer to transfer it to, You'll have to pay for it up front and then the delaer will hold it while your Form 4 goes through all the background checks. Oh, and don't forget the $200 tax you have to pay in addition to paying fror the silencer.
Form 4 requires two finger print cards, two passport photos, CLEO sign off and a longggggggg waittttttt.......

Grassman
December 25, 2008, 11:09 AM
What a beating of a process.........Again the law abiding citizen pays the price.........

moosehunt
December 25, 2008, 12:55 PM
Too bad they are "basically" illeagal, though I realize not technically illegal. They are pretty neat. I was using one on a .22-250 in Namibia, where legality is not an issue. Hot loads sounded like a .22 LR and accuracy was not effected. The point of impact changed, but not the accuracy, i.e. you had to sight in differently with it on or off.

Gunnerpalace
December 25, 2008, 05:04 PM
I was really just kidding about the potato.....

Yeah I know, even though it doesn't work still looks cool in movies. :D

Oh and IBTGATC, (In before the get a trust crowd).

Also I am guessing you will need to get or have the barrel of the 700 threaded, should it be legal for you to obtain the can.

jerkface11
December 25, 2008, 05:18 PM
The potato would also require a tax stamp.

IdahoLT1
December 25, 2008, 05:44 PM
It is unlawful to possess, manufacture, transport, repair or sell a machine gun, explosive weapon, short-barreled firearm,
or silencer. Federal registration of such an item under the
National Firearms Act is a defense to this prohibition.

I pulled this off the NRA website. Initially , to me, it seems they are illegal in Texas, but that last sentance throws me off. One sentance says its illegal, then the next says its legal as long as you abide by NFA rules and regulations.

If they are legal, you need $200 for a tax stamp and expect to pay $400-$700 for a silencer and wait 6 months to a year to recieve it. Then its a whole other issue if you can have your rifle threaded and whether the supressor has to be permanately attached.

A possible cheaper alternative might be to buy a rifle that is already suppressed at a liscensed dealer. You can get all your paper work done there and wont have to pay the gunsmith to thread your barrel or possibly have to register the rifle you already own, along with another tax stamp for having it threaded. We have a couple shops where the sell firearms that are already suppressed.

Will Learn
December 25, 2008, 08:54 PM
I bought a SWR Trident 9 for my 9mm's, it's sitting at my class 3 dealer's until i get my permission slip from the BATFE. I can't wait until I get it, I'm gonna run it on my 9mm SBR AR (5.5in 3 lug TROS barrel) and my glock 19 for now. I think you will get the best results from shooting sub sonic ammo through the things as the crack from the sonic boom creates the most noise. I'm going to load up some 147's (9mm) for mine going about 950-1000fps.

MatthewVanitas
December 26, 2008, 05:11 AM
I pulled this off the NRA website. Initially , to me, it seems they are illegal in Texas, but that last sentance throws me off. One sentance says its illegal, then the next says its legal as long as you abide by NFA rules and regulations.

I had no problem buying my integrally-suppressed Ruger MkII in Texas. I was told by the local NFA dealer that the Austin Chief of Police wouldn't sign off, but the Travis County sheriff would, and had no trouble from him.

I got a couple more NFA items waiting at my dealer, and am forming a trust to do those, just so that I can share them with family in the future more easily.

Too bad they are "basically" illeagal, though I realize not technically illegal.

Getting a suppressor in most U.S. states isn't much harder than buying a handgun is in stricter U.S. states. There's a minor paperwork hassle and a few months' wait, and the $200 expense is annoying, but it's certainly quite doable.


It was definitely worth it for me, as the .22LR can is a lot of fun. Plus it's great to be able to introduce other people to the wonder of suppression.

Afy
December 26, 2008, 06:49 AM
One of the advantges of being in Europe. Silencers are legal, easy to get, and relatively cheap. I have one for my .22, and had one for the .260.
While they do reduce the sound and recoil dramatically, they do not suppress the bullet going supersonic.

acpchuck
December 26, 2008, 10:00 AM
One of the common problems to getting a NFA item is the background check delays and then getting the chief law enforcement officer to sign off on it. An alternative is to form a LLC and then apply as a corporation. BATF can't do a background check on a LLC and no requirement for local law enforcement to sign off. There is an additional cost for the LLC ($100 here in Idaho) but then anyone who is listed on the LLC can have possession of NFA item.

My son did this when he was getting his suppressor and has my name on the LLC. So I can legally take it out and use it. I have plans to apply for a Form 1 to build a suppressor and will use the LLC so he too can use it.

waterhouse
December 26, 2008, 12:07 PM
One sentance says its illegal, then the next says its legal as long as you abide by NFA rules and regulations.

Basically they are legal if you fill out the proper federal paperwork. I asked a lawyer about this several years ago and was told that there are often laws written in this manner so that local LEOs have authority to arrest you for violating a state law if you didn't fill out the federal paperwork. He said they would usually just call the feds to deal with the prosecution, but it made the arrest paperwork easier if they could say "State Trooper Smith arrested Mr. Jones for violating state law section xxx."

Grassman, it seems like a ton of work, but really it is just filling out paperwork, waiting, and paying the $200 tax. I'll warn you though, most people that own one end up owning more than one, and it can get pricey. As someone mentioned, be sure to factor in the cost of things like barrel threading and such.

Loggerlee
December 27, 2008, 06:50 PM
Have any of you ever had anyone ask to see the paperwork on your suppressor?

ScottsGT
December 27, 2008, 09:42 PM
Have any of you ever had anyone ask to see the paperwork on your suppressor?

Yea, my brother, close friend and fellow gun nut, my kids.... :D

Ranb
December 28, 2008, 03:18 AM
Moosehunt, why would you say "Too bad they are "basically" illeagal,"? Just because a person has to obtain government authorization and pay a tax does not make them anywhere near illegal. You wouldn't tell that to a person who is driving their car on a public road would you? Government permission and a tax are also required for driving the car there.

I'm sure you have never heard of anyone being denied authorization to make or buy a silencer as long as they filled out the paperwork properly.

Ranb

Ranb
December 28, 2008, 03:19 AM
The only person who asked to see my form 1's was the range officer at the range I was using them at. I did not have to show them, but as the facility was privately owned, I had to show them if I wanted to use them there.

Ranb

moosehunt
December 28, 2008, 03:42 AM
Jeez, let's get picky! If you don't have a special permit they are illegal. Yes, the permit can be attained. I maintain, they are basically illegal, but not technically, because one can attain a special permit. The intent of the law was to make them illegal for the average guy, because when the law was made, $200 was a lot of money few would part with. I have nothing against them, in fact I think they are pretty cool, as mentioned above. Not cool enough for me to spend $200 on, not mention cost of the suppressor, but each to his own.

Ranb
December 28, 2008, 06:04 AM
I prefer to be picky, especially when it seems to me that a person like yourself seems to be promoting the idea that the federal government bans some guns. There are no federal laws banning any small arm. Post a link if you know of one. The feds also do not require any license or permit for a person to make or own any kind of firearm except machine guns made after May 1986. The tax stamp is not a license or permit, it is merely proof the tax was paid and the firearm registered. The only people that get a license from the ATF are those who import, manufacture or deal in firearms as a business. Those who merely want to buy, sell, own, or make them do not need a license or permit.

That you say otherwise does not help gun owners at all. While the backers of the NFA of 1934 may have wanted guns banned, they did not succeed. They only made them more difficult and expensive to own. They do not need gun owners to help them any more than we already do.

A $200 tax plus the cost of making one ($20-$100) is not too much to own a silencer. I spend much more on ammo for any of my guns than the cost of a silencer.

So what did you mean by "can be obtained"? Those tax stamps or permits as you call them are a routine matter and always issued by the ATF unless the paperwork is not filled out correctly. If you think I am being too preachy, is it because you are not promoting (in this case) gun ownership on a gun website. Let the VPC and Brady bunch do that, we do not need to do it to each other. Sometimes I think we are our own worst enemy.

Ranb

moosehunt
December 28, 2008, 12:13 PM
Well, since we want to get all touchy about who supports gun owners and defend our crooked government, please consider that things like silencers, "black" rifles, and concealled carry have done more to degrade gun owner support than anything in recent years. I have absolutely nothing against any of them, BUT, in the non-gun owner group, which unfortunately is a big majority of the populace, they are PERCIEVED in a very negative light, hence having a very negative effect on our future right to pocess firearms. That right will soon be gone with the forthcoming communist regime that takes office in a little over 3 weeks. For clarity, while I personally have no interest in silencers, concealled carry, black rifles, or full auto firearms, I am very OPPOSED to ownership/use restrictions on any of them (except for felons, mentally unsound, etc). So, please don't accuse me of supporting the enemy. To me, when it is said that something is illegal unless you attain a special permit, it has been basically stated that said entity is illegal. That is my angle, and if you don't see it that way, so be it.

PTK
December 28, 2008, 04:28 PM
Too bad they are "basically" illeagal

Never have been since invention to now. They're easy to get, relatively inexpensive, and USEFUL.

Here's a quick comparison of 30-06 silenced vs. unsilenced, and .45 silenced vs. unsilenced...

45acp (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=L28dCxRsoYg)

30-06 (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7SIWkwO-ZhI)

Ranb
December 28, 2008, 07:01 PM
It is people like you who refuse to do the slightest bit to educate themselves on gun law and are willing to spread this ignorance by calling perfectly legal firearms “basically illegal”; that are degrading gun owner support. Is a person more likely or less likely to support the right to own a certain firearm if they believe you when you claim they are illegal?

You have done absolutely nothing in this thread to support the right to keep and bear arms. If you want to change how silencers are perceived, then you are not going to get anywhere on this thread by claiming they are illegal. What have you ever done to get non-gun owners to support the RKBA’s? I hope you are doing a lot better than you are convincing silencer owners that their silencers are legal to own.

So what is this special permit you keep talking about? When are you going to get a clue? You sound just like one of those Zumbo supporters that think AR-15’s are terrorist weapons and should be banned.

Ranb

pgeleven
December 29, 2008, 04:25 AM
Google 1934 National Firearms Act and see for yourself. Wikipedia's page is pretty good

NEVER use Wikipedia for legal advice. i have an account on there and i can edit that page to say silencers are legal in every state and it would probably remain unchanged for a day until somebody noticed. your best bet is to go into USC codes, state laws (which should be provided on their .gov website, or even your local firearms retailer for guidance)

Never trust Wikipedia for legal advice, anyone with an account can edit it at any time.

Girodin
December 29, 2008, 02:56 PM
Jeez, let's get picky! If you don't have a special permit they are illegal. Yes, the permit can be attained. I maintain, they are basically illegal, but not technically, because one can attain a special permit.

I am a bit aghast that you would repost such nonsense after it was already well refuted once.

They are not basically illegal. As was pointed out they are basically illegal the same way driving is basically illegal. Actually it cost me more money and took more time to get a drivers license than a tax stamp for a suppressor takes.

One must get a tax stamp not a "special permit." If I don't pay the tax on my motorcycle, car, boat, house, etc I can not use them on public property does that make them basically illegal? I have to pay a user fee to go to national parks does that make them basically illegal? The answer is a resounding NO.

There is a huge difference between being "basically illegal" and being regulated. If my car is not registered and I park it on the street that is illegal would you contend parking my car on the street is basically illegal because I must receive a special permit to do so?

As long as there are no state laws at work then suppressors are legal but much like many things in life one must meet certain legal requirements.

The intent of the law was to make them illegal for the average guy, because when the law was made, $200 was a lot of money few would part with.

That may be but has little to do with their legality today. If the current tax was raised to $2000 or $20,000 then one might contend that while legal their cost is very prohibitive much like FA weapons.

I have nothing against them, in fact I think they are pretty cool, as mentioned above. Not cool enough for me to spend $200 on, not mention cost of the suppressor, but each to his own.

Super, you cannot easily afford one, what relation does that have to their legality. I cannot easily afford a Bentley that says nothing about their legality.

twinhairdryers
December 29, 2008, 03:14 PM
It sounds like it is not that much of a PITA to actually get one, but how much does a smith charge to thread a barrel? It seems like a permanent mod to a firearm could make the 200 stamp seem low.

what are the best pistols to silence - IE ease of threading, shooting with or without the can installed?

anyone selence a 10/22 rifle? i'd thank that would be an accurate and nice silent way to go. can a subsonic 22LR round cycle a semi-auto action?

Ranb
December 29, 2008, 05:39 PM
One of the most impressive suppressed firearms I have seen was a Ruger 10/22 with a little 1"x6" AAC silencer. The bolt clacking was seemingly louder than the muzzle report. There are less noisy firearms out there, but they are suppressed bolt action rifles or integrally suppressed guns with ported barrels that reduce velocity, sometimes to a substandard level. I have a 51 caliber subsonic carbine with a 2"x18" can on it. It suppresses a load of 30 grains of H110 enough to make it sound like a car door slamming instead of a gunshot, but it is not as impressive as a good suppressed 22 rimfire.

That said, Al Paulson's Silencer History and Performance states that a 10/22 bolt closing on a cartridge is about 100 decibels, while the muzzle blast is about 115 decibels. The muzzle blast seems quieter because it is of such short duration and farther from the shooter's ear than the bolt. If you are paying attention to a normal conversation at the shooting bench with another person, you might not be aware that the shooter was shooting anything.

From what I have read about others who have gunsmiths thread their barrels; if the barrel is easily removed from the gun, then it usually costs less than $50 to thread it on a lathe. A skilled gunsmith uses a lathe instead of a die to ensure the threads are aligned with the bore. I use a tap and die for anything less than one inch because I am not a skilled gunsmith. :)

My 10/22 would not reliably cycle with subsonic ammo when using the stainless barrel it came with, but it did fine with the $20 blue Ebay barrel I bought for it. The stainless barrel might have a rougher chamber, not sure why.

Ranb

ETA; the Buckmark and S&W pistols are very popular to suppress. 9mm's are also popular, but most of them need a recoil booster to decouple the weight of the silencer from the barrel upon firing to allow the slide to operate correctly and pick up the next round. The Berretta 92's do not as the barrel does not tilt and is not affected as much. I made a silencer for my Browning HP. It is not an ideal host as the barrel is quite slim and there is no shoulder for the end cap to index on to maintain proper alignment. I had to simply make it a tight fit on the tiny portion of the barrel between the threads and the front of the slide. I was able to make it light enough to use without a recoil booster. But I had to load the 147 cast bullets above the max load in the book to 1060 fps and use a cut down 8 pound spring to ensure proper operation.

As far as I know there are no 45 ACP pistols that will function properly without a recoil booster. They are also noisier than most suppressed 9mm's due to the larger bore when both are shot dry, but they are significantly more powerful when subsonic ammo is used as the bullet weight is typically 230 grains vs 147 grains.

Shooting suppressed is a nice experience. Under the right conditions, it is possible to do without using any other hearing protection at all and still be safe on the ears. While ear muffs and plugs have their place, it is delightful to shoot without their numbing affect on your hearing. This is something that certain self loathing gun owners enjoy, but do not want the rest of us to experience.

DoubleTapDrew
December 29, 2008, 07:00 PM
It sounds like it is not that much of a PITA to actually get one, but how much does a smith charge to thread a barrel? It seems like a permanent mod to a firearm could make the 200 stamp seem low.

what are the best pistols to silence - IE ease of threading, shooting with or without the can installed?

anyone selence a 10/22 rifle? i'd thank that would be an accurate and nice silent way to go. can a subsonic 22LR round cycle a semi-auto action?
Threading isn't bad, maybe $70 or just buy a barrel that's already threaded. I was getting a bull-barrel for my 10/22 anyway and it was about $60 more for the threaded barrel than the non-threaded one (and most come with a nice looking screw on cap to hide the threads when they aren't in use).
Just make sure they thread it in relation to the bore and not the outside of the barrel. If your suppressor is screwed on and it's a little cockeyed you could get baffle strikes and those are expensive.
Suppressed 10/22 sounds like a low powered pellet gun and you can hear the bullet thwack the target and the cycling of the action sounds louder than the report. Mine cycles most subsonic ammo reliably. If it gets dirty it has some extraction problems with aguila subsonic but that stuff was less accurate than cci subsonic and stunk so I don't use it anyway.

twinhairdryers
January 4, 2009, 01:57 AM
match on the receiver now. Sounds like it is a good call to thread that one, as i'm guessing that a can does not exactly make a factory barrel into a target match rifle. I have a bull on the current receiver and it's accurate. What can is best for 10/22 22LRs?

rob_s
January 4, 2009, 07:45 AM
Grassman, I STRONGLY suggest you find and visit several Class III dealers in your area and find a good one that you trust. CIII dealers are generally head and shoulders above your average FFL dealer (read, not as stupid or as crooked ;) ) and if you can find the right one for you they will generally help you with the paperwork, tell you which CLEO will sign off or recommend an attorney for forming a trust if none will, etc. They want to get you through the first one because the first one is the hardest, and subsequent purchases will be easier for both you and them.

Many of the top suppressor manufacturerss webpages have "dealer finder" features and you can use this to find CIII dealers in your area.

Ranb
January 4, 2009, 11:00 AM
Take a look at http://www.subguns.com for a list of dealers in your area and a forum for advice on a dealer if it is not on the list.

Ranb

Rollis R. Karvellis
January 4, 2009, 11:22 AM
GlockPost.com has a couple of guys who seem preaty up on the NFA stuff also.

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