Rifle suppressors - legal all over Europe... its polite

Lee_Enfield_Lover

Lee_Enfield_Lover

Member
Rating - 100%
21   0   0
Location
Portage La Prairie MB
Having chatted with a bunch of my U.K. buddies and their European friends, the general trend to be polite to your neighbours (and the trend will go this way one day potentially far in the future) is to put a suppressor on your hunting rifle so that you bother your neighbours less when you go shooting. For no other reason than that, and cutting down the noise on the shooter that'll deafen their ears over years of shooting, I wonder if there is a real chance at getting the Feds to allow suppressors.

I'm sure that the NFA, of which I'm not yet a member, has pushed that in the past. In the U.K. though, for anyone who applies to have a suppressor, from a very knowledgeable shooter says, backed up by everything I've read, if someone applies for a suppressor and they're denied, the person responsible for turning down the application is then responsible for any health and safety implications (read - hearing loss) that the shooter would incur versus their lack of having a suppressor. For that reason alone, no one in a position of authority turns them down. Realistically, who is going to be the criminal who is dissuaded from using one anyway? I'd rather be a whole lot less obtrusive to my neighbours if I could! Its just polite and would win a few points in courtesy with non-gun folks.

I absolutely understand the Feds not wanting to have suppressed handguns wandering the streets. So make the folks who do the illegal gang-bang stuff never see the light of day ever again if they did. Wish that was the case. I also realise that the UK has population density that Canada hopefully never will, but really - why couldn't this be a legislative 'go' if the NFA pushed it along those lines?

- T
 
get someone to file a workers compensation claim over hearing loss that a suppressor would have prevented and we are golden ......

but on the other hand it may work too well and we may all be forced to now use a suppressors without any say or choice in the matter .......
 
How amazing would that be!

I can't ever see it actually happening here with the way our convoluted firearms laws are written, but it definitely makes sense. Exposure to any repeated noise can cause hearing damage and I'd love to not have to wear two levels of hearing protection when shooting some of the loud magnum calibers.

Plus it is a more polite way to shoot isn't it?
 
As burnt-servo said, this could go both ways. The governemnt could declare it illegal to shoot without a supressor, and with our market we might end up paying thousands of dollars each.

Would the guys who have eight rifles in different calibers pay $750 each to get supressors for them? Probably not seeing how few people will pony up membership dues for the NFA or CSSA.

That said, I would like to have the choice of using a supressor or not, but I absolutely do not want it to be mandatory one way or the other.
 
It would be good to have the choice, and I'd love to see it happen, however I think its an uphill battle here to get something like that approved any time soon. We have a lot more important things that need to be dealt with at the present time, and the bureaucrats keep dragging their feet on .
 
Surpressors work ok but they will never eliminate the bang thats created when the bullet breaks the sound barrier,
The best is 22lr subsonic s with a suppressor or subsonic 308 rounds, then they are quiet.
I'm from the uk and used to hunt Vermin at night with a surpressor on a 222 and you would still wake people up. But with a 22lr it's quiet.
They are dam big and ugly too
 
wilsy said:
Surpressors work ok but they will never eliminate the bang thats created when the bullet breaks the sound barrier,
The best is 22lr subsonic s with a suppressor or subsonic 308 rounds, then they are quiet.
I'm from the uk and used to hunt Vermin at night with a surpressor on a 222 and you would still wake people up. But with a 22lr it's quiet.
They are dam big and ugly too
Click to expand...

I've heard a suppressed 308 being fired (Europe) and the sound was about like a 22 magnum. It wasn't a subsonic round either, I was pretty impressed. They won't become legal here, general consensus is that they're only used on sniper rifles and handguns to assassinate people.
 
My brother and I borrowed a suppressed 30-06 in South Africa last year and used it to take 16 big game animals. I would say the noise of the shot was substantially reduced, but far from "quiet". I used hearing protection for all but three shots and regretted not having my plugs in for those three. Our PH used this rifle for culling on his property, said it was noticeably better for shooting several animals in one location without disturbing the herd as much as a straight pipe would. It was heavy, long and awkward. But that suppressed Sako was accurate and deadly.
 
wilsy said:
Surpressors work ok but they will never eliminate the bang thats created when the bullet breaks the sound barrier,
The best is 22lr subsonic s with a suppressor or subsonic 308 rounds, then they are quiet.
I'm from the uk and used to hunt Vermin at night with a surpressor on a 222 and you would still wake people up. But with a 22lr it's quiet.
They are dam big and ugly too
Click to expand...

Agree with them being unsightly.

Many rifle's in the UK now come screw cut for this very reason. In order to have a suppressor you have to apply to have one on your FAC or if at a later date you want one apply for whats called a variation on your FAC. Noise reduction is often needed if your club is in a built up area.Most Constabulary's allow on health and safety grounds and reduce noise pollution.
 
Lee_Enfield_Lover said:
Having chatted with a bunch of my U.K. buddies and their European friends, the general trend to be polite to your neighbours (and the trend will go this way one day potentially far in the future) is to put a suppressor on your hunting rifle so that you bother your neighbours less when you go shooting. For no other reason than that, and cutting down the noise on the shooter that'll deafen their ears over years of shooting, I wonder if there is a real chance at getting the Feds to allow suppressors.

I'm sure that the NFA, of which I'm not yet a member, has pushed that in the past. In the U.K. though, for anyone who applies to have a suppressor, from a very knowledgeable shooter says, backed up by everything I've read, if someone applies for a suppressor and they're denied, the person responsible for turning down the application is then responsible for any health and safety implications (read - hearing loss) that the shooter would incur versus their lack of having a suppressor. For that reason alone, no one in a position of authority turns them down. Realistically, who is going to be the criminal who is dissuaded from using one anyway? I'd rather be a whole lot less obtrusive to my neighbours if I could! Its just polite and would win a few points in courtesy with non-gun folks.

I absolutely understand the Feds not wanting to have suppressed handguns wandering the streets. So make the folks who do the illegal gang-bang stuff never see the light of day ever again if they did. Wish that was the case. I also realise that the UK has population density that Canada hopefully never will, but really - why couldn't this be a legislative 'go' if the NFA pushed it along those lines?

- T
Click to expand...

I bolded the most important part of your entire post.
Stand together or fall alone, for far less than the price of the suppressor you desire, you can be part of the movement that brings about great change.
 
Movie lore indeed. The deal of people being responsible for other people's hearin loss is untrue. Unjust talked to a friend who has a bit to do with them licensing in the UK and he had never heard of that before. The idea would be, why would you spend 500 quid on a suppressor to save a bit of hearing when 25 pence buys more effective ear plugs. Somehow a bureaucrat would be responsible for that poor decision making? Uh....huh.

Anyway, they use them for reducing noise polution and that's essentially it. James Bond didn't scare anybody over there so they still use them as intended.

I would love to have them for a few rifles and and appropriate target pistol or two but I doubt I would hang an extra pound and change off the end of my well balanced hunting rigs.
 
If suppressors were legal, I'd get the biggest, most effective one possible for my .223 gopher gun. Couldn't care less about OAL out in the field, and ANY reduction of noise would be excellent.

Why would you ever want to shoot unsuppressed if you didn't have to?
 
Because they aren't any damn good for some platforms. And they unbalance firearms that don't need to be. And because they make low profile, good quality hearing protection that does a better job than a suppressor with any non subsonic round. They also happen to be a pain in the ass to tune well enough to attain the same level of accuracy you can get with non suppressed rigs. There are lots of reasons.
Most professionals don't use them without an intended purpose.
 
rem338win said:
Because they aren't any damn good for some platforms. And they unbalance firearms that don't need to be. And because they make low profile, good quality hearing protection that does a better job than a suppressor with any non subsonic round. They also happen to be a pain in the ass to tune well enough to attain the same level of accuracy you can get with non suppressed rigs. There are lots of reasons.
Most professionals don't use them without an intended purpose.
Click to expand...

Very good to know! I know running them on full autos can cause issues with gas in your face and increase ROF, but for civvie purposes I think they'd be fantastic. Less noise = less hassles from other farmers = more places to shoot gophers.
 
Sign me up! If it helps cut down on the noise my neighbors hear then what's the issue?
My only experience with a suppressor was on a select fire mp5. It was long and heavy but neat
 
bearkilr said:
You'd be able to use your full, natural, unaltered hearing while hunting with a suppressor, without having to use ear plugs or huge noise cancelling muffs.
Click to expand...

Haven't shot a higher velocity rifle round with a suppressor have ya? You still want plugs if your pulling the trigger more ham a few times. And don't be cheap; by good quality canceling muffs and they aren't "huge".

And you missed the point. Why is the bureaucrat responsible for your hearing when plugs are cheap and you're too stupid to use them? Just saying that argument holds no water.

Why should we be allowed to own suppressors? The question hasn't been answered reasonably as to why shouldn't I.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom