This discussion is quickly reaching the ridiculous. The fact that the majority of ammo that happens to operate below the speed of sound is actually target ammo is TOTALLY moot. The only ammo I am discussing is the stuff specifically labeled as being "SUBSONIC". The entire point of that label being to note that it is quieter than conventional ammunition. Thus it is a "DEVICE" that reduces the report of a firearm and thus totally fits within the loosey goosey definition of a prohibited device in Canada.
Not sure how more clear about that I can be.
Of course this entire discussion is theoretical because nobody has ever been charged as such nor do I ever see it happening. I am only making the point that the law is so badly written that an ammo type which is freely available COULD actually fit into the definition of a prohibited device.
Really? So ammunition isn't a device of any kind? It isn't something that has been "devised" for a purpose? Maybe you should look up the definition of the word.
First: There is NOTHING in the law that says a device has to work to a minimum level in order for it to be considered to be a prohibited device. Any device that that is intended to reduce the noise of a gunshot by so much as a single decibel could be classified as a silencer under our law. Thus your argument that a device wouldn't work very well is totally pointless because there is no limitation on the sound reduction.
Second: Bloop tubes DO reduce the noise of a gunshot. Listen to one being used and that will be blindingly obvious. I have sound tested a bloop tube and have confirmed that it achieves a small sound reduction. The difference being that it is not designed nor intended to reduce muzzle blast and thus does not fit the definition of a prohibited device.
It is late sunday night and I don't have the exact wording of the law in front of me. However IIRC it refers to muffling the report of a "firearm" and not muffling the report of a "shot." Thus in comparison to conventional ammo subsonic ammo could be considered to muffle the report of a firearm. That the ammo IS the shot is probably moot.
I can tell you that US law classes captive piston ammunition as individual silencers subject to a $200 tax for each round. This is US law but we know that the RCMP/NWEST liase closely with ATF and so take lessons and ideas from them. Nobody can really know how such a device would be treated in Canada but I wouldn't bet my freedom on it not being classed as a prohibited device.
You're right, this is ridiculous.
We are not in the U.S. Thus we don't have their law. We don't have a law concerning captive piston and good luck finding or making it. We also don't have their tax, many SBS are available to us non-restricted that would be taxable cross border, so don't strain yourself over these details.
The ammunition I was speaking of has a primary purpose of being accurate 1st, and is labeled as such. This labeling seems to hold importance to you, so I addressed it. The very idea that anyone would suggest that the ammunition has a nefarious side according to Canadian law is patently absurd. What would be the logical conclusion of that? Minimum velocities, random handload checks, maximum lengths of barrels, outlawing ultra fast powders, maybe melt down all the .455 Webleys out there as they might not hit super sonic. Every time a new load came out, someone would have to check it to make sure it hit minimum db.
I'm quite aware that bloop tubes have an impact on magnitude of noise experienced; it's basic physics. You mentioned that you tested and found a "small" difference. An informal shooting probably would not make this "blindingly" obvious. I know that there is no minimum amount. There is as much variation between ammo as to account for the difference in report. No, I think the difference between an actual silencer and a bloop tube is "blindingly" obvious, no matter what you label it as.
So if I muffle the stock, according to you, I'm in contravention of the law? Just where do you think the "report" comes from anyway?
I have no misapprehensions on what a device is. Maybe an English course would be an asset to you when you're trying to decipher the relational meanings between words. While you're at it look up the word muffle, as it seems to have eluded you. (Hint: it does not mean design it quieter in the first place.)
