Canadian Law - when does a blast can become a supressor/silencer?

Claven2

Claven2

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
409   0   2
Location
Onterrible
With all the recent talk of blast cone flash supressors like the SPEX and similar products soon to be on the market, I got to thinking. Making a muzzle attachment for a 1/2x28 muzzle is easy as pie. And in all honestly, anyone with a lathe and mill can build a prohib silencer if they had illicit intent.

BUT...

At what point does a can or cone style flash eliminator/hider/suppressor become a prohibited device (i.e. silencer)?

Does the Canadian law require a zero drop in the decibels of the round's report, or is an RCMP lab ruling sort of thing or what?

I have lots of great ideas to compensate or hide muzzle flash, but it's possible some of them would affect the volume of the gunshot.

Is there definitive guidance out there for us tinkerers?
 
The way the law is worded, any device that produces any measurable reduction in the report of a firearms discharge is prohibited.

However, that doesn't provide much guidance on what they mean. It doesn't suggest where and when the report would be measured, what scale or form the testing would be.
 
Actually, the criminal code of Canada lists, as a prohibited device, any device which is designed or intended to muffle the report.

The issue though, is that you may build something that has muffling as neither the design goal nor the intent, but which does slightly decrease or muffle the report??
 
I think from reading another thread a LONG time ago that there is an interval of decibal level change that you must stay within.

for example: if it changes the decibel level by 10 then it is prohib.

I dont remember the specific number so sorry about that, but I do remember reading something on here like that at one point.

It could have been conjecture I dont really remember haha.

EDIT: apparently it is conjecture so ignore the above.
 
Last edited:
At what point does a can or cone style flash eliminator/hider/suppressor become a prohibited device (i.e. silencer)?
Click to expand...

There is no easy answer to your question.

As Canuk and Claven have pointed out there is no dB limitation where a muzzle device becomes a silencer. The law seems to hinge on "designed and intended" but as we know the RCMP could certainly take exception to a "muzzle brake" that produced a significant sound reduction in their opinion.

It doesn't suggest where and when the report would be measured, what scale or form the testing would be.
Click to expand...

True but there is a MIL Std for sound testing silencers that is used throughout NATO and all over the world so it should be reasonably easy to convince a court that the RCMP need to prove to the MIL Std that a specific device produces a sound reduction.

The good side to that is there are only two sound meters capable of properly measuring a suppressed gunshot and they are rare and expensive. I hope to have one of these sound meters soon.

There are certainly ways of manipulating sound that could be used to make any device sound how you wanted it to while producing the desired recoil reduction.

I have a lot of experience with sound suppressors and am a student of the history of sound suppressors so I have a fairly decent idea of what might end up classed as a suppressor and what you could probably get away with. I would sign a non-disclosure agreement if you want to run some of your ideas by me.
 
The law is so badly written, and so maliciously intended, that (as marauder alluded to re: an insulated building) even this could be declared a prohibited device.

Shooting with your muzzle in a pillow could have that pillow designated a prohibited device. Shooting through a stack of tires to minimize disturbance to the neighbors could have you up on charges.

The law is SO POOR that, in my opinion, it should be struck from the public record and formal policy regarding actual firearm suppressors be adopted.

Now, what I want that policy to BE is another thing entirely! :D I'd like to see us like Finland, where NOT using a suppressor can be punished by law in some areas... ;) After all, it's just uncivilized to make all that noise...

-M
 
we could use those countries as an example of how suppressors are not evil baby killing machines that the general public seems to think they are. and take this up with the (hopefully) new conservative majority :p
 
A device that re-directs sound (and flash) down-range so the shooter does not blow his eardrums out, does not make the firearm any quieter 50ft, 100ft or 500ft down range.

I have no scientific data to back that up, but that is the generally accepted concept.

I think you have to get into an area where the muzzle device was designed to capture then cancel / change the sound waves to hide the actual sound of the firearm.

2 cents - if that
 
Claven2 said:
Actually, the criminal code of Canada lists, as a prohibited device, any device which is designed or intended to muffle the report.

The issue though, is that you may build something that has muffling as neither the design goal nor the intent, but which does slightly decrease or muffle the report??
Click to expand...

s**t! Shoving a potatoe onto the barrel of a .22 is illegal then lol. Nearly completely muffles the shot AND starts the process for mashed potatoes.
 
Last edited:
i want a suppressor so badly, i think this issue should be followed up!!!!!! And pushed to the public eye so i'm not deaf by the time i'm old and grey from enjoy a passion, such as hunting or target shooting, sure hearing protection exists, but whats one more level of protection added to the equation gonna hurt!!
 
Doc M said:
The law is so badly written, and so maliciously intended, that (as marauder alluded to re: an insulated building) even this could be declared a prohibited device.

Shooting with your muzzle in a pillow could have that pillow designated a prohibited device. Shooting through a stack of tires to minimize disturbance to the neighbors could have you up on charges.

The law is SO POOR that, in my opinion, it should be struck from the public record and formal policy regarding actual firearm suppressors be adopted.

Now, what I want that policy to BE is another thing entirely! :D I'd like to see us like Finland, where NOT using a suppressor can be punished by law in some areas... ;) After all, it's just uncivilized to make all that noise...

-M
Click to expand...

and New Zealand, Norway, Germany (kinda) those are the one I remember now.
the De-regulation of suppressors would reduce hearing damage sufficiently. I might even consider looking the other way for a "suppressor registry" (what a joke)if the government deemed it necessary (as they would) (like the atf tax stamp, without the $200 of course ) and meant we could buy them over the counter.
 
Even the UK allows suppressors. It's a recognized necessity in small countries, where noise issues are something you have to deal with instead of drafting bylaws to push ranges out to the countryside.
 
I thought the EU deemed it a health and safety issue. There is no known reason to ban their use, especially at ranges. Where the density of shooters is incredible high. Once again law aiding licensed users will use them as intended, criminals will use them or own them regardless. If you are not licensed and you are found with one, you get the book thrown at you, seems straight forward.
 
The law is so badly written, and so maliciously intended, that (as marauder alluded to re: an insulated building) even this could be declared a prohibited device.
Click to expand...

The one thing that could be considered to be a silencer under our law but thus far has not been deemed as such are subsonic rounds. Lets face it, in most cases the entire point of going subsonic is less noise and recoil. That fits perfectly in our law as a prohibited device.

A device that re-directs sound (and flash) down-range so the shooter does not blow his eardrums out, does not make the firearm any quieter 50ft, 100ft or 500ft down range.
Click to expand...

That won't help when the reference position for sound testing a firearm is perpendicular to the muzzle.

and New Zealand, Norway, Germany (kinda) those are the one I remember now.
Click to expand...

Don't forget France, UK, Sweden etc. Canada is one of the only developed nations on the planet to totally prohibit civilian ownership of silencers. Either we are way ahead of the curve or we are way behind it .........
 
Behind it...

Most NATO militaries are focusing on widespread adoption of suppressors, some for the tactical advantages, but the vast majority of them for the hearing damage that soldiers suffer throughout their careers.

I've never really figured out the Canadian terror of sound suppressors.
 
KevinB said:
Behind it...

Most NATO militaries are focusing on widespread adoption of suppressors, some for the tactical advantages, but the vast majority of them for the hearing damage that soldiers suffer throughout their careers.

I've never really figured out the Canadian terror of sound suppressors.
Click to expand...

Standard Canadian emotional over reaction.
 
Petrock said:
Standard Canadian emotional over reaction.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly know that the only thing preventing ME from becoming a super-stealth-ninja-assassin is the fact that I don't have a suppressor.

Aren't you guys the same?

Oh yeah, and the other day I just THOUGHT about transporting a restricted firearm without my LTATT on me, and my front door LITERALLY wedged itself shut until I remembered to grab my wallet.

-M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom