Suppressors?

OldSavage said:
Some idiot is shooting over your corn field, the same one you choose to walk your dog through. Wouldn't you rather be able to hear the shot.
Click to expand...

Hopefully, the shooter is aware of their surroundings and avoids shooting when others are in the area.

Better yet, shoot in areas where there is NOBODY.

From my understanding, a suppressed rifle can still be heard. Just the kaboom is now more like a pfffttt. It was described to me like the sound of a truckers air brakes being bled when they stop for the day.

Not silent... just suppressed.

But we are likely leaning this towards a restricted device so it would be range use only anyways. AND that is a wonderful thing as the greatly reduced noise levels will make shooting far more appealing to everyone.

My family's biggest complaint about not shooting is the noise and the noise around them.
Jerry
 
kombayotch said:
People who make gun laws don't want civilians owning guns period, forget about suppressors. They aren't considering whether the law is ridiculous or not, that wasn't even a factor in their thinking. Whatever law they pass is just the biggest step they were able to get away with at the time towards completely outlawing the ownership of firearms.
Click to expand...

:agree::agree::cheers:


Easterner said:
I can see the political dilemma with suppressors, It seems the same as restricted firearms. So why don't they just apply restricted status to them? I'd gladly get an att and transport it accordingly.
Furthermore, don't they realize that they can make money from things like this?
A tax stamp system would work as well.
Click to expand...

There is no dilemma, aside from stupidity and emotion overruling logic and fact. The sheep learn their firearms knowledge from hollywood and are taught to fear guns from birth. The entire classification system is bulls**t and a complete failure. Don't fall victim to thinking it does anything useful at all. A gun is a gun, period.


Mark
 
If a suppressor wasnt restricted to range use only it would help to not scare off other wild life when hunting. Less stress to wild life. Good stuff.
 
The sheep learn their firearms knowledge from hollywood and are taught to fear guns from birth.
Click to expand...

This is why they are prohib. A 30 round mag can take out a battalion of enemy without a mag change and a suppressed gun, no matter the caliber, can be shot in a small room without anyone even so much as blinking. At least this is how it is in the movies

Dino
 
OldSavage said:
I would love to see this study you are talking about as it sounds like complete horse s**t to me.

As for being able to hear a gun shot and how that could be safer? I think its pretty self explanatory.

Some idiot is shooting over your corn field, the same one you choose to walk your dog through. Wouldn't you rather be able to hear the shot.

I agree with the points here but someone has to be the devils advocate. The only thing I have more than anti gun folk are the idiots with gun that give them a reason. I realize all of you are responsible but tell me straight up that you've never seen someone doing something stupid.
Click to expand...

Of course you'd still be able to hear the shot. Supressors help reduce noise levels - not eliminate it. The muzzle signature is reduced but that does nothing to stop the sonic crack of the bullet going super-sonic.

I've shot several supressed rifles using standard ammunition (read: not subsonic) and I still used my ear muffs while doing so. The supressor made shooting those rifles a very pleasant experience.

Suputin is right. Once you shoot supressed, you'd never want to do it any other way if you had a choice in doing so.
 
OldSavage said:
I would love to see this study you are talking about as it sounds like complete horse s**t to me.

As for being able to hear a gun shot and how that could be safer? I think its pretty self explanatory.

Some idiot is shooting over your corn field, the same one you choose to walk your dog through. Wouldn't you rather be able to hear the shot.

I agree with the points here but someone has to be the devils advocate. The only thing I have more than anti gun folk are the idiots with gun that give them a reason. I realize all of you are responsible but tell me straight up that you've never seen someone doing something stupid.
Click to expand...

suppressed rifles ( using regular ammo ) are still very audible.. think .22mag loud for something in a .308 type case.
I still use ear goggles for suppressed rifles

Sputin can probably supply some db figures though
 
There's nothing I'd love more than to be able to put a suppressor on a couple of my rifles. Is there any talk of perhaps changing some laws in regards to civilians being able to use them? If not, that definitely something worthwhile writing your MP about....
 
It would be nice to have the "option" fo hearing protection. It must not be made mandatory, that would just be another stupid law. plus everyone would be looking like the guy in No Country For Old Men, and that dude creeps me out. I would not want suppressors under the guise of safety concerns though, I would just want it because a free man should just be able to have it.
 
JAGDMORDER said:
It would be nice to have the "option" fo hearing protection. It must not be made mandatory, that would just be another stupid law. plus everyone would be looking like the guy in No Country For Old Men, and that dude creeps me out. I would not want suppressors under the guise of safety concerns though, I would just want it because a free man should just be able to have it.
Click to expand...

Nobody said anything about making this a mandatory condition for owning/shooting a firearm; nor would it be presented as such.
 
Suppressed regular ammo is about 133db. Is my understanding. Anyone who has stood in the butts of a military range knows the supersonic boom of a bullet is substantial. There is no way if you are in a field you wouldn't know that a bullet just passed close by. There is no good reason why suppressors aren't legal for rifles.
Criminals can make rudimentary ones relatively easily if they so desire. However, I just don't believe gangbangers care. The only people hurt by this prohibition are law abiding citizens pursuing a lawful activity. I find it strange that in this day and age that something this beneficial to public safety is banned.
 
I guess my experiences are different than most and I agree with what everyone is saying and I am also aware of what a suppressed rifle sounds like.

Strictly being the devils advocate.

My experiences in the past have proven how stupid some select shooters/hunters can be and I understand to some extent (not fully) where some of their opinions are based even if they do not fairly represent the shooting public as a whole.
 
So, you're basically using the same logic the antis use for standard capacity magazines, autoloading rifles, handguns and well... firearms in general and everything that relates/resembles them: a few might abuse them, so nobody should have them. Why take the chance right? Gun owners don't represent the public as a whole...

Just playing the devils advocate.
 
A friend walking through the simcoe county forest as she does everyday and gets shot and killed by a hunter thinking she was a deer.

Some boys from the city shooting in my neighbours back yard thinking its crown land and killing there dog accidentally. The sound of the rifle was the only thing that kept their kid from walking down the same path as that dog to go fishing in the grand river.

Unlike the antis I have rationale behind my opinions and I generally keep them to myself.

The majority of us are responsible some of us aren't. That's all I mean.

My conversation never spoke about any other gun issues. Not high capacity magazines, hand guns, or ar rifles.

I believe that some of the laws are rediculous just as we all do. Please don't classify me with the anti's. I just think we're all doing just fine without suppressors.
 
This is FUDD thinking f:P: I guess the other Countries trusting their citizens with suppressors must have blood running in the streets and forests your logic is :confused:

OldSavage said:
A friend walking through the simcoe county forest as she does everyday and gets shot and killed by a hunter thinking she was a deer.

Some boys from the city shooting in my neighbours back yard thinking its crown land and killing there dog accidentally. The sound of the rifle was the only thing that kept their kid from walking down the same path as that dog to go fishing in the grand river.

Unlike the antis I have rationale behind my opinions and I generally keep them to myself.

The majority of us are responsible some of us aren't. That's all I mean.

My conversation never spoke about any other gun issues. Not high capacity magazines, hand guns, or ar rifles.

I believe that some of the laws are rediculous just as we all do. Please don't classify me with the anti's. I just think we're all doing just fine without suppressors.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not sure how a suppressor would have made a difference in the first case. In the second the dog would still be dead and there is every chance the kid would have heard 130db gunshot. He might not know exactly where it came from but it was close.
 
Not that he would have had a suppressor on a shotgun anyway, even if he did, she would have died anyway. The equipment used has NOTHING to do with it...you are grasping at straws.

Your example #2.... so by your logic we should have to put "loudeners" on archery equipment? Or should we just ban bows as well....

Sorry, but your arguments hold no water. There is about as much sense in banning suppressors as there is in banning mufflers on chainsaws (you know...so that kid doesn't accidentally walk under a falling tree)




OldSavage said:
A friend walking through the simcoe county forest as she does everyday and gets shot and killed by a hunter thinking she was a deer.

Some boys from the city shooting in my neighbours back yard thinking its crown land and killing there dog accidentally. The sound of the rifle was the only thing that kept their kid from walking down the same path as that dog to go fishing in the grand river.

Unlike the antis I have rationale behind my opinions and I generally keep them to myself.

The majority of us are responsible some of us aren't. That's all I mean.

My conversation never spoke about any other gun issues. Not high capacity magazines, hand guns, or ar rifles.

I believe that some of the laws are rediculous just as we all do. Please don't classify me with the anti's. I just think we're all doing just fine without suppressors.
Click to expand...
 
I really didn't think I'd start such a debate and believe me it wasn't my intention.

I know what suppressed fire sounds like and I realize it isn't as its portrayed in Hollywood. But it definetly isn't as distinct or identifiable as normal gun fire and that was what I meant by that one experience.

I'm entitled to my opinion as everyone here is also. I respect peoples desire for a suppressor and I can also understand some of the positives, but I just don't think it's neccessary (or a priority in gun law reform) and my examples were mostly to give perspective of where the "antis" may be coming from. I wouldn't be upset or concerned if suppressors were legallized, I also wouldn't run out and buy one.

I fight enough battles with anti gun people and stand my ground fairly well on the same points as you. I don't think there is enough of an arguement here for me to continue as it wasn't my intention to get people fired up. I really wasn't aware that this many people actually wanted a suppressor or felt that strongly about the current law and its law of validity.

And yes the woman getting killed during the shotgun hunt has nothing to do with suppressors but it has everything to do with my original point regarding idiots and that not everyone follows the same rules, respect the sport,use common sense, or should even be allowed anywhere near a firearm. My fault for not pointing that out as I can understand the misinterpretation.
 
Last edited:
Mystic Precision said:
We should set up a class action lawsuit and SUE the Govt for putting us in danger of injury.

Their negligent laws are denying us the use of ENHANCED safety gear to protect ourselves and those around us.

The govt is forcing us to 'drive unmuffled'.

Irony will be some lawyer may actually win THEN shooters will all ##### that they need to spend another $$$ to suppress each rifle :)

Jerry
Click to expand...

I totally agree. We have an exceptional case. The government is supposed to be concerned for all of it's citizians safety. I think we have a right to be as safe as possible when it comes to sports or hobby's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom