Adding a silencer, kinda mysterious?

There should be lots of good info on line about adding a silencer to a 1911. It sure isn't the simplest thing to do.

I don't know of any way to do it with the factory barrel (too short) and because of the locking mechanism you'll need to use a Nielson device or it won't cycle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_booster

Buy a threaded barrel for your weapon. Screw the suppressor on your barrel. Be sure to test fire with ammunition and make sure your weapon remains reliable with the suppressor.

Swapping barrels for your weapon is not difficult. There won't be enough material sticking out of the slide for your stock OEM barrel to be threaded. You'll need an aftermarket threaded barrel.

You'll need a new barrel.

Because, you'll need a half inch or so of barrel protruding out beyond the bushing.

That will be the portion of barrel that is threaded.

That is what the silencer will thread onto.

I wouldn't use any NFA weapon (including a suppressed weapon) for home defense. In case of a shooting, this would look terrible in front of a jury. They would think it was overkill, or that you were looking for trouble.

If you have to shoot in a HD situation, blast and sound are your friends. They enhance the intimidating effect of the weapon. In addition, an attached suppressor might have an adverse effect on the reliability of the weapon (unless this is set up exactly right). The added length of a suppressor also would make a handgun more unwieldy in tight quarters.

AlexanderA said:

I wouldn't use any NFA weapon (including a suppressed weapon) for home defense. In case of a shooting, this would look terrible in front of a jury. They would think it was overkill, or that you were looking for trouble.

If you have to shoot in a HD situation, blast and sound are your friends. They enhance the intimidating effect of the weapon. In addition, an attached suppressor might have an adverse effect on the reliability of the weapon (unless this is set up exactly right). The added length of a suppressor also would make a handgun more unwieldy in tight quarters.

Click to expand...

This is not good advice. Muzzle blast in an enclosed environment such as a house or hallway WILL damage your hearing permanently. A suppressor is a safety device for the shooter, nothing more. Your assumption of what a jury might think is nothing more than conjecture. If the added length of a suppressor would make a handgun so much more unwieldy to handle then how do so many people successfully defend themselves in their homes using rifles and shotguns with long barrels and stocks?

Do you have any case law you can cite that proves your opinion?

Do you have any case law you can cite that proves your opinion?

Click to expand...

Probably a hack argument from a 20 year old gun rag.

Just a note... sorry this is so long. Quotes and data formatting took up more space than I thought they would.

Do you have any case law you can cite that proves your opinion?

Click to expand...

Just to play devil's advocate... if you are convicted of a crime while possessing or using a silencer/suppressor, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years.

Whoever, during and in relation to any crime
of violence or drug trafficking crime (including
a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime
which provides for enhanced punishment if
committed by the use of a deadly weapon or device)
for which he may be prosecuted in a court
of the United States, uses or carries a firearm,
shall, in addition to the punishment provided for
such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime,
be sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and
if the firearm is a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled
shotgun to imprisonment for ten years, and
if the firearm is a machinegun, or a destructive
device, or is equipped with a firearm silencer or
firearm muffler, to imprisonment for thirty years
(emphasis added) (18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)).

Click to expand...

Here's a law journal with some commentary and case law:
http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf



Personally, I think its a good idea to use a suppressor for HD. Not only do you save your hearing, you save the hearing of your family and improve your situational awareness. Nothing like 160dB gun shots in a hallway to distract you from the guy coming around behind you.

Overall length shouldn't be much of an issue, though adding 7+ inches to the end of your gun does make it a bit harder to handle. If an unsuppressed pistol at full extension is roughly the same distance away from you as the barrel of a 16" rifle, adding a suppressor to the pistol would be the same as adding a suppressor to that rifle as well. It will make it a bit more difficult to handle, but its up to you to decide if the benefits outweigh the costs.

A possible solution could be a micro suppressor which is only around 4" or so, but most of those use wipes, so you can only get a mag or two out of them before you have to take the suppressor apart and replace the wipes. You could still shoot through it with shot out wipes, it just wouldn't really be hearing safe.


OP: As stated earlier, to attach a suppressor to a pistol (or anything) you need a threaded barrel. On a pistol, that will usually extend about half an inch past the end of the slide. Make sure that you order the right thread pitch for your suppressor. (For example, I'm purchasing a suppressor from a friend with a thread pitch of 1/2x28, and I'm having a very difficult time finding a 9mm barrel for a Sig 228 threaded in 1/2x28, most are in 13.5x1 LH)

As far as type of weapon to suppress, I would personally go with a 9mm. 147gr 9mm is subsonic like a 230gr .45, but the 9mm has a smaller diameter hole at the end of the suppressor for gasses to exit which means more gas is trapped in the suppressor making it quieter.

Here are some metering levels of suppressors. I don't have TiRant 45 data, so I'll compare the Osprey45 to the Osprey9 which should give us similar data to a TiRant45 vs 9 comparison.


Unsuppressed pistols are typically around 160dB (+/- 3dB or so)
Hearing safe levels are generally set at 140dB

Bolt/Slide drop:

Osprey45 dry:
Osprey9 dry:
TiRant9 dry (for comparison to Osprey9)

Note: Info is from NFAtalk.org. I would recommend signing up there if you're really interested in purchasing a suppressor. The owner of the site posts his own suppressor test dB ratings at no cost (and yes, they're taken with professional equipment).

Tornado Technologies can probably extend and thread your factory barrel for you.

Maybe look at a Sig TacOps with a Osprey from Silencerco.

I still like the idea of a full length barrel .45 acp, rather than a sub sonic 9mm though.

Click to expand...

Depends what you want. If you want quiet centerfire pistol, 9mm beats .45 hands down.

Usually I'm skeptical of internet rumors about what is or isn't kosher, but in this case I'd have to agree that any Class III or DD is a no-no for self defense under any scenarios this side of a North Korean paratroop attack.

Aside from the dramatically enhanced federal penalties involved, the use of something that exotic will almost guarantee enhanced police scrutiny. It's odd. Very odd. And you don't want anything odd. Odd is bad.

I think silencers are a great idea for helping to quiet down the noise of small game control around a city or to protect hearing from those shooting a large amount, but if you're having to shoot and possibly kill someone the potential loss of a few decibels of hearing are pretty low down the list.

As long as logic can be laid out in a court of law, I don't see any reason not to use a silencer for home defense. The prosecution can scream till they're blue in the face about how you wanted to assassinate your victim without waking the neighbors, etc... but if you called the police to report your own self defense shooting, none of it holds water. And the facts are quite plain and unarguable that unsilenced firearms permanently damage one's hearing, especially when fired indoors. So the silencer is quite literally a safety device and nothing else.

I know, I know, this all hinges on the jury being fair and logically minded. Then again, if the DA was logically minded, it would never see a court room in the first place.

As long as logic can be laid out in a court of law,

Click to expand...

OJ was acquitted of murder then lost $33.5 million in a wrongful death suit of one of the murder victims....not sure logic factors into the equation.

Silencers thread on. The police won't get there for 10 minutes or so. I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

Silencers thread on. The police won't get there for 10 minutes or so. I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

Click to expand...

Ummmm DON'T tamper with evidence. If you've shot someone in self defense and then you adjust / tamper with anything you will be looking a great deal of scrutiny.

That is likely the worst thing you could do. Altering evidence is never a good idea and a great way to make you a criminal.

...if you're having to shoot and possibly kill someone the potential loss of a few decibels of hearing are pretty low down the list.

Click to expand...

I don't think that's the issue. While hearing loss is one concern, the greater concern IMO is the loss of whatever equanimity you may have had once the first concussive blast occurs. If you miss that first shot or if you're dealing with multiple intruders, you may be crippled from the deafening and blinding gun shot, unable to effectively continue the defense. Especially with a multi-intruder scenario, if you blast one of them, the first one that you encounter, but another one or two are located outside the room where you set off the first round, you'd be somewhat incapacitated compared to them. They wouldn't have been as affected from the flash or bang.

Also, if you're firing a round in your 'safe room', and other family members are located there, you could also be putting them beyond the ability to defend themselves if you are killed or injured in that moment. If you fire off a .357 mag in your safe room and are then hit with a club/bat or stabbed and not able to continue the defense, your full volume gun shot can hinder other family member's ability to do anything thereafter.

This is the primary concern in such an event versus simple/eventual hearing loss. I think a suppressed defense weapon is almost a must due to this advantage.

OJ was acquitted of murder...

Click to expand...

He never claimed self defense and therefore had no ability to its civil immunity possibilities.

The prosecution can scream till they're blue in the face about how you wanted to assassinate your victim without waking the neighbors, etc... but if you called the police to report your own self defense shooting, none of it holds water.

Click to expand...

It isn't so much the DA I'd be worried about. It's the responding officers. Silencers are unusual. Doubly so on a home defense firearm. So it's going to be a red flag. For better or worse people associate them with assassination.

you may be crippled from the deafening and blinding gun shot

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that would be. For one thing you shouldn't be shooting in pitch black, unable to see what you're aiming at. Second, the noise isn't sufficient to stun you. It's just noise. I've capped off a .357 from a snub in a small room in my one and only ND. I don't want to repeat the experience, but the noise itself had no impact other than making my ears ring afterwards. In a weird way I didn't even notice it, it was so loud. Remember people have fought whole wars without any hearing protection at all and done just fine. Other than losing hearing later, that is. And it gets easier after the first round, not harder.

In an ideal world it would be great if we could have silencers on firearms we use for CCW or home defense, but this isn't an ideal world. Silencers for most people in the US are James Bond tools. So the question will be--why did this guy have a silencer? Was he setting this whole confrontation up? Was this really self defense?

Indoor gun blasts can be devastating to the senses. Maybe not for everyone. Eye of the beholder. Little to debate.

So the question will be--why did this guy have a silencer? Was he setting this whole confrontation up? Was this really self defense?

Click to expand...

IMHO, these questions don't fly. Answered in order; (1)Safety. (2)No. (3)Please see the results of the police investigation.

I don't see how a suppressor on a HD weapon is any different than Tritium night sights, a weapon light, or a laser sight. All of them assist in the effective indoor and low light use found in HD.

Now, I surely wouldn't put it past any DA to make hay of any tiny concept ever. But if we add any of these accessories to a HD weapon, any DA could look at the Tritium sights, the 30-round magazine, the laser, .50 caliber Desert Eagle and say, "why did this guy have Tritium sights? Was he setting this whole confrontation up? Was this really self defense?"

Why did this guy have a silencer?

If this question can't be effectively answered by your defense attorney, you need a new attorney.

Was he setting this whole confrontation up?

Yes. I made sure that the prowler found us holding up in our safe room so that I could shoot him with my suppressed SBR as he kicked its door down. (I use absurdity to point out absurdity, no offense )

In all seriousness, I get it.

• A prosecutor can jump to any conclusion.
• A police investigator can do the same.
• Some places in this country are very different than others in regards to popular opinion and ideology.
• HD scenarios are not static environments where everything is cut and dry.

But regardless, I don't see how a legally owned and operated silencer adds any more nefariousness to a HD shooting than hollow points, high cap mags, night sights, large calibers, tac lights, handloads, advanced training, etc.



Good form of thread drift IMO. Hope the OP doesn't mind.

Well, my opinion of it is like this, if it was indeed used for self defense in your house then you just simply say that was the closest loaded weapon within reach. Who are they to argue? There you have it, problem solved.

...simply say that was the closest loaded weapon within reach.

Click to expand...

Here's a different angle...

My HD weapons are task specific. I've added a weapon light here, particular ammo there, a specialized accessory here, an appropriate upgrade there.

IOW, I've designed and built certain, individual weapons to do nothing else but to be ready for a low light encounter, indoors, for HD. I've trained and retrained with these guns so that I know how to operate them effectively.

Scary.

It sounds like I'm preparing for combat.

But I'm not.

I'm just doing what I can to protect my family. Why should I HAVE to do this preparation and the eventual act without the aid of good sights, good ammo, or a suppressor?

My wife's revolver has a laser sight because she doesn't really get out and practice enough to shoot too instinctively well. But lasers are used in Star Wars. So maybe she's part of The Empire.

glad someonelse pointed out that 9mm is QUIETER. a lot of people think that because 45 is subsonic that it is easy to suppress. as far as i know - the 45's powder charge creates a much greater blast and is more work to tame.

as for O.J., i heard that he never paid up. they simply had a judgment against him, he never actually paid it. therefore, it didn't really COST him much.