[smince]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hnahn3D2sAc

[Gord]

$130 for a disposable suppressor? Jeez.

I always just stuff a 2-liter soda bottle with paper towels and duct tape it on for those impromptu assassinations, myself. :p

[Zak Smith]

For certain applications a very cheap suppressor with a service life of a few dozen rounds can make sense. With US law, it is more problematic. I wouldn't call $130 that cheap though.

[Strahley]

If you didn't have to have a $200 tax stamp, I'd get one to mess around with, or just to own as a conversation piece

[LHRGunslinger]

It'd be great if it was a rifle caliber supressor and you could just pick one up once a year just for hunting. But thanks to good ol elected officials we can't have fun.

[shotgunjoel]

I wouldn't be worried about having to pay the tax stamp, they are never going to be imported because suppressors are considered firearms and I'm confident that they would not meet the "sporting purposes" clause.

[M-Cameron]

ummm......exactly what legitimate need would there be for a disposable suppressor....?

[REAPER4206969]

ummm......exactly what legitimate need would there be for a disposable suppressor....?
Inexpensive guard dog and sentry removal.

[RhinoDefense]

From the video:

It has baffles.

Really? A suppressor with baffles? That's revolutionary!!!

[Zak Smith]

exactly what legitimate need would there be for a disposable suppressor
Legitimate is a poor word choice.

[jmorris]

ummm......exactly what legitimate need would there be for a disposable suppressor....?

All of my Form 1's or 4's have either "All legal purposes" or "Asset to the Trust", to answer the "reasonable necessity/Intent" questions.

[Gord]

For certain applications a very cheap suppressor with a service life of a few dozen rounds can make sense. With US law, it is more problematic. I wouldn't call $130 that cheap though.

Even minus the tax stamp, $130 is pretty ridiculous for the service life. $30-50, sure; otherwise (especially outside of the US) standard suppressors are available for not that much more. I hear from a couple friends in the EU that cans average around $200 there.

[RhinoDefense]

Think of ways suppressors are used. Think of governments that buy them. Think what those governments are involved in that a suppressor might be of use. Think why the element of secrecy is realistic. Now take that and apply it to the concept of a disposable suppressor that after a few shots will be rendered unusable. Many governments, including ours, purchase blank (unmarked) suppressors for certain agencies to use for "need to know" particulars. This is not a movie, this is reality. Some of my company's suppressors have been sold to US government agencies that bought them with a pretty concise MENS (mission essential needs statement) attached to the purchase order. I know for a fact the government carries out personal diplomacy based on those alone.

[SharpsDressedMan]

The obvious "legitimate" use of a sound suppressor for firearms is to make the muzzle blast more pleasant, if not totally "silence" it. Other than to reduce the noise, why would you need any OTHER reason to justify owning one? Let's face it; gunshots are downright annoying, and even harmful to one's hearing. Anyone that would need more reasonthan that is just not using common sense.

[M-Cameron]

no no no.....i fully understand the reasons people own suppressors....and i have absolutely no problem with that........

but what would an honest man need a Disposable suppressor for....?

[Zak Smith]

but what would an honest man need a Disposable suppressor for....?
Ditch the moral arguments. If underwear were licensed would you say someone was dishonest if they wanted disposable underwear?

Imagine if the US military could buy a limited-use suppressor for $15/each. It would be designed to work reasonable well for one combat load for an M4. It would be essentially disposable, much like a stripper clip or a magazine. In this model, they could be issued ubiquitously instead of in limited numbers and it wouldn't matter if they were lost or destroyed.

[M-Cameron]

its just that it seems to me, that this seems geared towards more nefarious individuals......the whole shoot and throw away bit.........

[Zak Smith]

The entire world does not have the same restrictions on silencers that we do in the US. If we had "registration" on 30-round magazines (and thus super over-engineered models on the market that lasted forever), it would be a logical mistake to assume that a regular AR-15 magazine made overseas - no serial number and no registration - was for "nefarious" purposes. That line of reasoning fails.

[Silvanus]

I have a hard time thinking of a reason to buy a disposable handgun suppressor... Especially one that costs over 100$ :eek:

Not that I don't like suppressors, I have one for my AR and ordered another for my Glock, but the whole disposable thing seems kinda weird.

I hear from a couple friends in the EU that cans average around $200 there

Tell me where please, my B&T will cost 600€:banghead:

[M-Cameron]

im just having trouble imagining a situation where someone other than a hitman or gang member would benefit from using a suppressor that only lasted a few shots.......

if you could supply me with a situation then ide have no problem with it......but i cant think of one.

[Zak Smith]

I posed on in post #16

[M-Cameron]

so your telling me the military can spend millions of dollars on tanks, planes, ect.......but a few hundred dollar suppressor is over the line.......as it is, your average soldier is sporting around $17,000 in gear.......i really dont think they're strapped for cash........

[Zak Smith]

But suppressors aren't issued to every soldier either.

I didn't say they were strapped for cash. I said that was one usage model for a limited-use suppressor.

Here's another one. Say you're a sport shooter but need to dispatch raccoons in the back yard from time to time. A cheap, limited-use suppressor would be perfect for that person.

[boricua9mm]

Take a look at the sociopolitical history of Africa and it's many genocides (where this video was shot, and where this item is available). That's all you need to know...

[Zak Smith]

Take a look at the sociopolitical history of Africa and it's many genocides (where this video was shot, and where this item is available). That's all you need to know...

The suppressor is manufactured in Austria by Glock. How is Africa relevant other than it's where Pincus shot the video?

[boricua9mm]

Do you see them marketed in Europe or the Americas? I sure don't. Seems Pincus hasn't either. In fact, he stated he had no idea they existed, other than coming across one in Africa. The concept of Personal Defense is on another level over there. Most break-ins here in the states don't involve machetes and dismemberment.

[strambo]

M-Cameron...here's a test: Go to the hood and shoot off the loudest gun you have. Wait for police (pack a lunch).

Criminals who do not carry firearms on them except when committing crimes, then stash them, certainly do not carry suppressors as well. They don't need suppressors (big, bulky, expensive) because in the places where they shoot people (the ghetto) the sounds are common and unremarkable. In other places (the stop-n-rob) it's not a gunshot that brings the police, but the clerk (or witness) on the phone after the robbery.

So that leaves the myth of the Hollywood hitman. I guess if the NFA suppressor law gets repealed they could then use a very good fake ID to buy one at the gun store...maybe.

[taliv]

that's as ridiculous as saying there's no need at all for disposable hearing protection. Everyone can buy a set of $200 peltor muffs. I mean, there's no reason for every shooting range in america to have a huge barrel of foam earplugs that people use once or twice and then throw away.

[Prince Yamato]

The suppressor is not necessarily a "shoot and toss" item. It is merely a (from what I can tell) wiped suppressor where the wipes and ablative medium cannot be user replaced. I'd bet that the suppressors get sent back to Glock and "recycled". I don't think they're a "shoot and toss" item. It's kind of like a Thompson Machine Poseidon if you had to send it back once the wipes are used up.

[taliv]

though i never got to shoot one, from what i've heard, those little muzzle adapters that let you attach a 2 liter bottle (the epitome of disposable) were reasonably effective. it would certainly trap more gas than any metal can I've ever seen

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

M-Cameron...here's a test: Go to the hood and shoot off the loudest gun you have. Wait for police (pack a lunch).

Criminals who do not carry firearms on them except when committing crimes, then stash them, certainly do not carry suppressors as well. They don't need suppressors (big, bulky, expensive) because in the places where they shoot people (the ghetto) the sounds are common and unremarkable. In other places (the stop-n-rob) it's not a gunshot that brings the police, but the clerk (or witness) on the phone after the robbery.

So that leaves the myth of the Hollywood hitman. I guess if the NFA suppressor law gets repealed they could then use a very good fake ID to buy one at the gun store...maybe.

I forgot who it was but I remember hearing a story about someone that checked into a hotel and shot once into a log and no one seemed to have noticed.

[Aikibiker]

I would be a lot more interested if there were no NFA laws to deal with and the thing cost $25-$35.

It is an interesting concept and if we ever get suppressors deregulated and someone starts mass producing those things (so they are closer to that $25 price point) they would be an awesome hook to get people interested in getting real quality suppressors down the road. Sort of like how those cheap POS red dots are the gateway drug to get people buying Aimpoints and EOTechs.

[Al Thompson]

I'd buy one for a rifle in a NY second, if it was only 130 bucks. I'd love having the ability to shoot game with no issues about hearing loss. For a handgun, not so much, unless it was for a home defense/self defense pistol.