1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

In which I try to talk some Democrats into supporting making suppressors Title I.

Discussion in 'Activism' started by jlbraun, Nov 5, 2007.

  1. jlbraun

    jlbraun Well-Known Member

  2. yesit'sloaded

    yesit'sloaded Well-Known Member

    Seems like most of them are Hollywood kool-aid drinkers. If they would actually go to a range, I bet most if not all of them would change their minds. I was shooting next to a guy with a suppressed AR15 on Saturday and it was still plenty loud. You need to work on miketheliberal because he is one of those that gives the Dems a bad name amongst us gun owners
  3. OEF_VET

    OEF_VET Well-Known Member

    There are plenty of people there who seem to think that ear muffs are the answer. I guess they've never been near a range when it was in use. Suppressors are protection for both the shooter and those around them. Some folks just don't get it, I guess.
  4. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    I've been trying for 20 years. I keep trying.:)

    jlbraun, good work. Keep talking about it. Move suppressors to Title I with federal preemption . . . for the children and the environment.
  5. Warren

    Warren Well-Known Member

    You know I've tried to put ear muffs on my gun but they just won't stay and the gun is still as loud as before.
  6. cpileri

    cpileri Well-Known Member

    don't call them suppressors

    And definitely dont call them 'silencers'.

    Try the angle of "Noise Pollution Reduction Devices", compliant with the noise reduction laws; and even with the reduction in lead fumes.

    NPRD's... kinda rolls off the tounge. Like it was meant to be!

  7. Warren

    Warren Well-Known Member

    I think calling them mufflers is probably the best as it gives people the right idea instantly without the Hollywood inspired baggage that comes with "silencer".
  8. Zedicus

    Zedicus Well-Known Member


    I always do this, it helps a lot.

    always compare them to cars having mufflers

    if they try to retort with "but guns kill people"

    cut them off with "so do cars"

    if they try "no, drunk (or insert other impairment) drivers kill people, not the cars"

    respond with "same with guns, cars can't drive themselves, and guns can't fire themselves"

    if they try "guns don't need mufflers" and when asked why they say "so we can hear them"

    respond by pointing out a particularly noisy car/truck (2002 and older cummins diesels starting on a cold day work well as an example) and say
    "See that car/truck? can you hear it?" when they respond with the obvious yes explain "even without a muffler a gun firing is many times louder than that, now think of how loud a gun would still be even with a muffler, could you still hear it?" then let them stew.

    -taken from an actual discussion I ended up converting an anti with.:D
  9. ScottsGT

    ScottsGT Well-Known Member

    I'm knee deep in fingerprints, Form 4 and passport photos right now trying to buy a supressor for my Walther P22. I will argue about this quote "An unsuppressed .22LR out of a semi-automatic pistol is about 160dBA and will cause permanent and total hearing loss at close range. A suppressed .22LR out of a semiautomatic pistol is still 127dBA, or about as loud as the front row of a rock concert(!)."
    I got to test fire my supressor I'm buying when approved, and all I could hear was the action of the pistol, and a very quiet "poof" of air. I do have a sound meter, and now my interest is peaked. But currently I'm awaiting the signoff by CLEO.
  10. Gingerbreadman

    Gingerbreadman Well-Known Member

    I am confused by that last statement. Your 127dBA "loud as a rock concert pistol" also only sounds like a puff of air and a working action? Don't get me wrong, I would love to have a sound reduction device, but I am mislead by that comparison.
  11. BridgeWalker

    BridgeWalker Well-Known Member

    Two words: Pregnant women. I gave up shooting for a long time because there is no way to put hearing protection on a pregnant abdomen.

    I haven't seen research showing that suppressors would make shooting while pregnant safe, but it seems it would go a long way. Of course, there is no research. Our culture demands that pregnant women be on the one hand smiling models of fecundity who are cheerful and happy and continue to work fifty hours a week until they birth, and on the other hand embark on the most carefully regimented diet, exercise, and environmental control programme ever devised. But that is a whole 'nother rant. :cuss:
  12. ScottsGT

    ScottsGT Well-Known Member

    Let me repost my statement. I had a quote in there from a previous post, but did not make it clear.

    The point I'm trying to get across here is that I do not believe that all supressed .22LR are 127dBA. It all depends on barrel length/velocity. The Walther P22 has only 3.5" of barrel. Bullet does not stay in the barrel long enough to burn off all the charge, thus the bullet stays subsonic, no "crack" of the bullet as it breaks the speed of sound. I have not yet had the opportunity to hear the silencer on a rifle, but I will soon. :D
    Does anyone know how these sound measurements were taken? How close to the muzzle was the meter? Over a hard surface, or over grass or dirt? Humidity & temp of the day? All of these factors can and will make a change in the meter readings. When I was flying R/C aircraft, we had to take measurements at 9 ft from the running aircraft on the ground, preferably over grass, on the same side as the exhaust exited. This was the "industry baseline" for sound pressure measurements. A lot of confusion really got involved when you introduced the frequency differences between a 2 cycle and a 4 cycle engine. The 4 cycle sounded quieter, but it was not.
    As far as the supressors go, I also got to fire a Taurus 9mm with hand loaded subsonic ammo. The best way I could discribe the volume of that was to drop a 2" thick book from 5' onto a hard floor. Not silent by any means, but very comfortable to shoot without hearing protection.
    I've gotta dig this meter out!
  13. Tyris

    Tyris member

    A mediocre 22LR silencer will drop report to 127db, some of the better ones are a few DB quieter.

    see here:

    The problem with the assertion that "22 pistol + can = rock concert" is that the concert is not an "impulse noise", like a hand clapping or a balloon popping. The 22LR may indeed be 127db, but only for a few milliseconds, comparison to a prolonged noise is not really valid.

    Silenced 22 pistols are pretty quiet and fun to shoot without hearing protection. 9mm also quiets down well. 40 is mediocre, 45 is a waste of time. Rifle calibers all generally have the supersonic crack, but the boom can be eliminated for good effect. All in all, they make shooting more enjoyable.

    Congrats on the silencer. Now you'll need one in every caliber you own!

  14. hankpac

    hankpac Well-Known Member

    my daughter went to the range with us when she was 7 months PG. she didn't shoot, but wanted to watch the fun. She sat under the shelter, with a big pillow wrapped around her belly. She also was about 50 yards from the line.
  15. Roswell 1847

    Roswell 1847 member

    Long ago, beyond any statute of limitations, and far away, beyond the twelve mile limit and in international waters, I found that you could effectively silence a .22 revolver by simply folding a thin throw pillow over the gun and holding it tight with one had while pulling the trigger. Less noise than a BB gun. One pillow caught fire hours later from an embedded spark, so I dampened the next one I tried this with.
    A bean can stuffed with foam rubber work will even for a .380.
    Why would a common crook want to invest in a device he doesn't need and would have to discard after one use. I've never heard of an armed robber using a silencer, not even a home made one. A professional killer wouldn't find any problem getting a suppressor if he needed one regardless of the law.

    They should at least allow, and even encourage the use of a report moderator that shifts the majority of a muzzle blast into a lower/higher frequency than the human ear can register. Its unlikely to be 100% effective but that would cut noticable hearing loss in the frequencies we depend on from day to day.
  16. Guido2006

    Guido2006 Well-Known Member

    Have two suppressor transfers pending: .308 and .22

    The .22 will be safe to shoot all the time with no ear protection. With the .308, I'll probably still use ear plugs when at the range, however, the suppressor should eliminate the problem below while hunting.

    I was hunting a few weeks ago with an SA M1A scout with the muzzle-break. Had my ear plugs around my neck. Hunting on the ground, 3 deer walked out from behind some vegetation about 10 yds behind me. I feared moving to put my ear plugs would spook them, so I just took the shot figuring that one shot wouldn't hurt my ears too much. I had never had problems before the few times I had shot a bolt-action .30'06 while hunting. About 10 seconds after the shot and the adrenalin wore off, I realized that my ears were ringing and they continued so for the next 45 minutes. Luckily after a day all seemed normal, but I'm pretty sure my stupidity did some permanent damage.

    I do realize that a cheaper, and probably better solution would be to get some "Game Ears" type headphones but the suppressors will be much more fun.

Share This Page