Questions on silencers and sub-sonic ammo.

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eurohacker

member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
106
Yeah, I know. Muffler is the correct term but ***, eh?

I've seen some weaps with integral silencers. MP5SD comes to mind as well as some SMG from WW2 that I can't remember the name of. The MP5SD is actually unique in that it slows regular 9mm ammo down to sub-sonic speeds, right? Any other silencer that does that?

Is there good sub-sonic rifle ammo? I am talking .22LR, .223, 7.62x39, 7.62x51, .50BMG etc. What are the ballistic properties of those? Is it powerful enough to work in gas-operated rifles?

Would carrying a silenced pistol be practical? For a normal handgun it seems clunky and unwieldy but what if you had like a derringer or one of these?

Why aren't there handguns out there on the market with integral silencers? That would be neat. If they could make the silencer short enough to not be an encumbrance I mean.
 
A few of the silencer manufacturers also make custom Ruger MKII/MKIII pistols with integral silencers. I've seen at least one manufacturer that makes a customized CZ rifle with integral silencer. Just look around, you should find a couple. Personally I'd rather have a silencer I could remove. If they ever made silencers illegal, I could probably still keep the gun that way, or at least travel into other states with just the gun and not the silencer.

Can't answer the question on subsonic ammo.

jmm
 
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.
 
Actually there are weapons available with intergral silencers. The Ruger MKll and the 10/22 to mention a couple. With the proper licensing and registeration of course. There are a number of manufacturers that make subsonic ammo in .22/9mm, and of course the old .45 ACP is subsonic. I don't know of any centerfire rifle subsonic ammo commerically available. I wouldn't see where a suppressed weapon would be useful or advisable for a CCW. Think of them as a quiet form of pest control without disturbing the neighbors.
str1
 
The proper term is suppressor. There is excellent subsonic 22lr ammo ,I use RWS hp.In a rifle it's very quiet, you don't need a suppressor. Getting suppressors means permits and fees from the ATF.
 
Hey Tim I was bothered by your question

"Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use."

Then I realized you are from MA, it will take awhile but if you work hard you can erase years of gun prejudice by hanging out on the High Road. I have hope for you, Welcome.
CT
 
Reasons to Own & Use a Suppressor

Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.
Click to expand...

I hunt with a suppressed .308 Remington 700 bolt-action rifle. I use the suppressor for many reasons.

1) Reduces felt recoil by 90% or more. I'm not afraid to admit that I'm recoil-sensitive, and by reducing recoil I'm less likely to flinch and possibly make a bad shot.

2) Suppressors also reduce barrel whip, which increases accuracy. Again, a plus for rifle shooting in both competitions and for hunting, especially at long distances. My deer rifle is doped to 1200 yards.

3) Noise reduction - I'll still have my hearing intact in mid-life and my later years.

4) Noise reduction - suburbia is encroaching on some of the farms where I have permission to hunt. What the neighbors don't hear doesn't bother them.

5) Noise reduction - the deer are less skittish when they don't hear gunfire. All they know is one member of the herd lay down suddenly, which gives other hunters in my group a better chance of bagging one. Note - the deer have overrun my county so badly that our season runs from Thanksgiving to New Year's, buck and doe all season, and hunters get 4-5 tags each.

6) BECAUSE I WANT ONE! :neener:
 
Last edited:
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.
Click to expand...
Please understand that I say this without any personal prejudice, and don't mean to come across as demeaning in any way. That question, though, is fundamentally flawed if we're supposed to be living in a free country.

I don't need to have a reason to do or own something. If someone else wants to stop me, they need to have a reason I shouldn't. That's the very basis of freedom: I shouldn't have to ask permission to do anything. It's why the 9th amendment is in the Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Which essentially means "you can do anything you want, unless we specifically say you can't." Toss in the 10th ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"), and it becomes "you can do anything you want, unless we specifically say you can't, and we can only say you can't if the Constitution specifically grants us the authority to do so."

So I challenge you, then, to explain why I shouldn't have a silencer. I can't think of any legitimate reason, other than paranoia or (possibly) ignorance.

Please don't say "for the children" either, that's pretty lame, unless the children are running the country, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate government.

As I've said before and I'll say again: if you have to justify your rights, you've already lost them.
 
Tim:

"Why would anyone want a silencer?"

1) Because I like to practice my target shooting in a semi-rural area (where my shooting is perfectly legal) and minimize the noise impact on the neighbors - reducing the likelihood they'll get upset and try to force me to stop.

2) Because I like to shoot "au natural" (without hearing protection that is :D ) and still want to be able to hear when I'm in my later years.

3) Because I like to hunt *and* be able to hear what's going on around me - safer for everyone concerned, dont'cha know.

4) Because I like them - and I can.

Suppressors have a bad rap here in the US. In many countries in Europe, where gun control is far more strict, suppressors are sold over the counter with no restrictions whatsoever. In some places, it is illegal to shoot/hunt *without* one because of the noise pollution and the population density.

Good question, glad I could help!

"I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use."

Perhaps this will assist you to think of a legitimate use and help with your prejudices. :fire:

Jax
 
OK some other not answered questions (I think)

The suppressor itself is fairly primitive in the SD. It is basically a series of gas diversion flaps angled toward the barrel. it actually doesnt do the slowing down of the projectile. The SD combines "barrel porting" which slows the velocity to under 1050 @ MSL (temp and alt cause variance) the suppressor slows gas and heat expansion. To me it isn't as quiet as most people expect... especially if you have been watching movies ;) Remember there is no "whiz" sound out of a supressor, its more like a muffled "pop" almost as if you were to hit a wire brush on a piece of wood.

3 things to remember when making a gun quiet,
1) bullet speed (sonic crack)
2) heat vs ambient temp meeting causing noise
3) gas 's sudden expansion into atmosphere (think popped balloon)

Now as to Why you would have one? Why not. It is polite to others (noise pollution). It is going to save your hearing. It is also something that you should take advantage of if so inclined since you can by law in many states. (if you can afford it)
Also no gun-shy Game... sounds like a good deal to me.

-personally, I can't afford them right now but I'm sure I'd get one if I could... Right now Flying is too expensive to do anything else :cool:

-edit BTW the WWII weapon you may be thinking of is the STEN or even the Delisle (sp?) Carbine? both were modified for clandestine operation. despite other reports ... from what it was, the STEN was a good weapon. The Delisle was a nice weapon as well. IIRC it was a carbine rifle using the inherently subsonic .45 ammo.
 
Central Texas: Yeah, thanks. But you never did answer the question....

Bubbles: #s 1-5, Legit answers. Thank you. But #6? But come on now, if you're gonna be nasty, then so will I..."recoil reduction, barrel whip, noise reduction" Hmmmm, get yourself a nice BB gun, son. :neener:

Control Group: No QUESTION is flawed in a free country! I simply asked why. I never even hinted anything beyond that. If you look at the original post, EUROHACKER wanted to know about practicality of CARRYING suppressed. That is NOT legitimate, in my opinion. I'm not ignorant, as you implied, I never invoked the "for the children" crap, and I never asked you to justify your (our) rights. And BTW: the civics lesson is not necessary, I know what the Constitution says, friend.

As far as game hunting suppressed goes, I guess...if it floats you boat, whatever, but I don't think it's "safer for everyone". Sorry, I'm not following the logic there.

My real issue is with carrying suppressed. I still don't see it.

Thanks to all that tried to answer without getting mean. I never meant to imply that I would deny to others what I see as unneccesary.
I guess I should just be happy no-one played the "troll" card.
 
Why would anyone want a "silencer"?

Because you can!!!!!! That's reason enough for me. Sadly I'm in NJ and CAN'T own one. :rolleyes:
 
Tim, I go to Boston twice a year so I speak Massachusetts. Suppressors are beneficial to public health, especially women and minorities.

Discharging firearms produces soundwaves which damage hearing even with hearing protection such as muffs and ear plugs. Women and minorities are especially suspectible to hearing damage from evil white men with guns. As well, suppressors slow the escape of noxious gases from the firearm which helps the environment and fluffy bunnies.

Thus, I own suppressors to better enjoy my firearms in a politically and environmentally correct manner. :cool:

P.S. you're not a troll, just curious. Giving knowledge is what THR is all about!

Euro,

Subsonic rifle ammo is available. Usually best results are obtained with handloads though.

Carrying a suppressed pistol is impractical. The weapon is unwieldly unless one is going plinking (informal target shooting).

There are pistols made with integral suppressors. The market is very small (usually aftermarket) because of the NFA hassle.
 
My real issue is with carrying suppressed. I still don't see it.
Click to expand...
Maybe he has very little hearing left, and some reason to believe it is likely he'll need to defend himself, and so he wants to make sure he won't make things any worse in that unfortunate event.
Maybe he wants to feel like a high-speed low-drag operator.
Maybe he lost a bet and has to see if he'll be made with a 10" supressor stuffed down his pants.
Maybe he is writing a book/screenplay and wants to make it realistic.

Life is too short to worry about why crazy people on the Internet want to do something. Their dime, their time. Just sit back and watch the fun.
 
By the phraseology of your question, you indicate that you think suppressors are illegitimate, and that using them for hunting is lame, unless you're planning on murdering someone.

It sure sounded like you were coming hard against the right to carry a suppressor, and the similarity of your word choice to the sort of rhetoric you hear from antis is significant. You didn't mean it that way, fine. I apologize for causing offense. But I hope you understand that I would expect much the same response as I gave from people if I posted in a thread here saying:

Why would anyone want a gun?
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.

Please don't say "hunting" either, that's pretty lame, unless the prey is human, which would certainly NOT be a legitimate use.

Again, I apologize for apparently misinterpreting what you meant. I do hope, though, you understand how your original post lends itself to such misinterpretation. Mea culpa.
 
What constitutes "suppression"?

A suppressor reduces the decibel level of a shot, and requires a special license to own. But how much of a sound reduction must be made for it to be legally considered a supressor? IOW, if a 20% reduction(for example) in sound level is "suppression", would a 15% reduction be permissible without the permit?
 
My real issue is with carrying suppressed. I still don't see it.
Click to expand...
I have it on good authority that discharging a pistol inside the confines of an enclosed space, such as a car, will result in higher levels of hearing damage than discharging the same gun at an open-air range.

Seems to me that a suppressor on a car gun might not be a bad idea.

Unlikely?
Yeah, but you never asked "what are the odds" only "why would you want."

:)
 
If it lowers the sound level even 1 dB the ATF can rule it is a suppressor. The flash suppressor/moderator on the XM177 rifle lowers the report by a few dB and the ATF decided it qualified as a silencer even though it was designed to lessen the flash.
 
Huh?

Old shooters tend to be deaf.

When I shoot indoors, even with just a .22, I wear plugs and muffs.

If I could find one compact enough, I'd want a suppressor - wouldn't have to greatly silence - just enough that I wouldn't hear that permanent ringing in my ears.

You've got to realize that suppressors were completely unregulated prior to 1934. And then a $200 tax was placed on what were then $5 pieces of hardware.
 
I can't think of any legitimate use, other than mil or (possibly) LEO.
Click to expand...


Yeah ... no legitimate use ... because anyone who uses a firearm in self defense DESERVES to suffer permanent hearing damage :rolleyes:

Hollywood is what has convinced most people that suppressors are only tools of criminals (much like they try to do with guns in general).

Hell, in Finland I understand that they require the use of suppressors.


Anyway, eurohacker, the reason there aren't many pistols made with integrated suppressors is because the stupid 1934 National Firearms Act requires a $200 tax for a $5 part (plus "permission" to own it). Also, they tend to be bulky, and handguns are all about compactness (even large handguns) otherwise you'd pack an SMG or rifle.
 
Tim,

If it makes you feel any better I thought it was a good question. I have never thought of some of the uses for suppressors that I have read about here in this thread. Some seem a little far fetched to me but some make a lot of sense. Being a hunter and one that uses guns for hunting and sighting in mostly, I had never thought of any reasons to have a suppressor, ear plugs seem much cheaper. I learned something too.
 
well this is kinda funny for me.

i am pretty new to all this, but been on this forum long enough to have heard why..
really so funny, because i never thought they were legal anywhere, and one word made me realize how smart and needed they are-
HEARING.
helps that my lady friend sells hearing aids so i am extra aware.

even in self defense, it sure would be easier to place the second and third shots (if needed) if your ears arent ringing from the first.

but i really like the idea for home ranges, not disturbing neighbors, etc.
loud gunshots make antis nervous from miles away- it goes on and on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
Here's the answer to your question on rifle ammo for SD...
Replies
0
Views
251
SaxonPig
S
Back
Top