Suppressors?
- Thread starter logan1080
- Start date
Bazzoka_Joe
Regular
- Location
- PRQ(People Replublic of Quebec)
To all the media ?? they are going to turn it around and spit it back like if it was some kind of devil killing machine ! and make us look like a horde of predator(like in the movie )
At this time no monetary donations are required for the project to legalize suppressors. What is needed is for people to print that study off and take it to their MP. If we get enough people doing this, they will begin to take notice of us.
Remember to give your MP a financial donation in order to get them to take you seriously. Money and votes are the only things they really care about.
Remember to give your MP a financial donation in order to get them to take you seriously. Money and votes are the only things they really care about.
My feeling is that we would be more effective as a group or a unified voice as opposed to random letters and donations spread out across the country. I think it's easier for politicians to dismiss or pay lip service to that one letter writer in Kamloops or Antigonish or Brantford or wherever than it is a well worded document pleading our case with 50000 signatures on it. Just my 2 cents.
Just to clarify, because I have never actually heard a suppressed rifle... is it safe to fire without hearing protection?
Also, I am definitely in favour of suppressors, only I don't think they should be mandatory. I think a person should have a choice. If I was required to suppress all my guns I'd go broke.
I am impressed to discover that a report similar to ours has been written by the Game Council of New South Wales in Australia. The difference is they are a government agency and their paper was written by a bunch of Phd's.
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/
I agree with what you said. While going to your local MP seems like a good thing to do, it's not the best idea politically speaking.
I also beleive there has to be institutional support behind this movement as well. The support and backing of credible organizations directly and indirectly associated with the fireamrs community, will be necessary to gain the public support for suppressor use.
In itself, drafting a petition with 5,000 names on it is simply not going to do it. It's something that could accompany a presentation to interested parties - not as a stand alone document.
Money may not be required at this point in time, however, if we were ever to become truly serious in this effort, I can assure you it will be. It will take money, and lots of it, in order to see it through regardless if we succeed or not.
I'm glad that we havie something in writing to present and that it is substantiated by the work of others. THIS IS HUGE! It gives our argument credibility from sources not directly associated with our movement. We need more documentation like this to further bolster our position.
I believe what we really need to do is to have some kind of visual presentation that we can use to help us gather support and spread draw attention to our cause. We need this kind of media to quickly get our idea accross to organizations and members of the public. Written documents are necessary but cannot be relied upon soley. In today's world, asking someone to read a document to get your point of view accross is asking a lot of them. You need to show it to them.
What about the use of social media? Hey, if Facebook and Twitter can help bring down corrupt governments, why can't it be used to help strike down a bad piece of law? Social media is probably one of the cheapest, most effective menas of getting our message accross to the masses. It's an absolute requirement in my opinion.
If the idea of legalization of supressors is to ever leave the pages of CGN, some sort of concerted and dedicated organizational support will be required in order for it to do so. It'll take a lot of effort, time, and work just to get our argument heard, let alone accepted.
Question is, who here is up to the challenge?
Last edited:
Who knows someone who is trying to stop the noise at Orono Fish and Hunt Club. If we could have the residents and municipality on our side of this issue we could have something. If local government supports the benefit of suppressors they can bring this to the feds. If every club was to contact the municipal councilors, MP's and MPP's of their jurisdiction and educate them with the health, noise reduction benefits of "report modification devices" we may be able to have a bottom up push.
Just a thought. It's a dream, I know. Flame away.
No disrespect but the fact that your advocating punishing everyone incase some one does something stupid is to be honest, well dissapointing.
All suppresses do is make shooting more enjoyable and even more civilised. I doubt this fact was lost on the lawmakers. As already stated the law makers do not want any firearms in the hands of civilians. The avenues that would open up for shooters due to something as simple as the suppressor does not take much imagination to be realised.
You are completely correct and no disrespect taken. I don't think that the responsible gun community should be punished for the actions of the few but those few still exist.
I am on board and understand the position being portrayed in this thread.
As for the noise complaint in Orono, couldn't baffles or other sound deading devices be used? Would 20 db really make the residents happy?
No one wants dumps, quarries, airports, etc in their back yard but they need to go somewhere. Gun clubs (and hunting and fishing clubs) are part of our heritage and serve a purpose in responsible hunting and firearm ownership. I believe that people are entitled to lower noise limits but don't you think they'd complain anyway?
I guess suppressors would be an easy fix for handguns and rifles but what options would there be for shotguns?
I grew up beside the luther marsh, and on duck opener it sounds like world war 3 yet I've never heard a single person complain. It was there when they bought the place and it will be there when they sell. Its only for a short period of time so maybe its not the best example.
I think this is still a pretty good case for suppressor though.
20 dB is a pretty good drop in noise level. That takes a hunting rifle from 165 dB down to 145 dB which is just a bit louder than a .22 rimfire rifle.
There are shotgun suppressors out there. If there was a real need for them, industry would pretty quickly learn how to fill any void. The only firearm that presents a real problem to suppression is a revolver because the gas can escape from between the cylinder and barrel. Pretty much anything else can be suppressed fairly well.
Ar180shooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Ottawa, ON
There are lots of suppressors that go way cheaper than that, but people in the U.S. are rarely willing to spend $200 on a tax stamp to get a $150 suppressor.
You're wrong about. One of the more popular rimfire supressors, the YHM Mite, can be had for well under $325. There are a number of inexpensive supressors on the market today. There's also quite a number of individuals who are willing to pay the $200 tax stamp for the priviledge of building their own, which can be done for as little or much money that they're willing to put into it. If they're inclined to do so, they could use nothing more than freeze plugs for baffles. Home built stuff can be done very inexpensively.
North Eastern Arms
Manufacturer-Business Member
Our problem with pitching our suppressors overseas is trying to convince them that it's better to have ours than a $300 disposable Serbian unit..
Has this idea gone anywhere??
I'll admit I've never fired or been around suppressed rifles, however, I have owned alot of rifles with muzzle brakes. I know that the brake will reduce recoil substantially, but really hate the noise. THere is nothing as hard on the ears on a range as a guy with a 300 or 338 braked. I have owned 30-378's, a 270 wby, and a 338LM that had brakes and really hate the noice they make. IF I can get the same recoil reduction with normal noise levels or a 20 db reduction, I would spend up to $500 quite willingly to have a rifle fitted with a good suppressor as long as I could do it legally. FOr now( and likely permantly, since I doubt we'll win this), I am looking at a Vias brake for my 270 because they are supposed to direct the gases forward and away from the shooter.
I'll admit I've never fired or been around suppressed rifles, however, I have owned alot of rifles with muzzle brakes. I know that the brake will reduce recoil substantially, but really hate the noise. THere is nothing as hard on the ears on a range as a guy with a 300 or 338 braked. I have owned 30-378's, a 270 wby, and a 338LM that had brakes and really hate the noice they make. IF I can get the same recoil reduction with normal noise levels or a 20 db reduction, I would spend up to $500 quite willingly to have a rifle fitted with a good suppressor as long as I could do it legally. FOr now( and likely permantly, since I doubt we'll win this), I am looking at a Vias brake for my 270 because they are supposed to direct the gases forward and away from the shooter.
Sure they would if one was offered. This is one of the most popular .22LR cans down there due to the cost:
http://www.tacticalinc.com/tac65-22lr-suppressorbrexcellent-suppression-easy-clean-p-38.html
They can also build their own can on a Form 1 and only pay the $200 transfer tax. Many do...
