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

I believe this is a change that we could make with concerted and well orchestrated lobbying. We need to get any institutes for the deaf in Canada (I assume they exist) on board, perhaps also provincial hunting organizations.

If we cast this as a health issue we are more likely to succeed. Hearing loss from shooting must cost the country billions. I also suggest we use the British terminology "sound moderators".

Perhaps a reasonable change would be to allow supressors/ moderators which reduce the report to a level below the threshold for hearing loss but do not make firearms totally "silent" as per those scary movies where bad guys assasinate people at will.

Suputin strikes me as a guy with the knowledge to spearhead this effort... ;)
 
Leonidas said:
I believe this is a change that we could make with concerted and well orchestrated lobbying. We need to get any institutes for the deaf in Canada (I assume they exist) on board, perhaps also provincial hunting organizations.

If we cast this as a health issue we are more likely to succeed. Hearing loss from shooting must cost the country billions. I also suggest we use the British terminology "sound moderators".

Perhaps a reasonable change would be to allow supressors/ moderators which reduce the report to a level below the threshold for hearing loss but do not make firearms totally "silent" as per those scary movies where bad guys assasinate people at will.

Suputin strikes me as a guy with the knowledge to spearhead this effort... ;)
Click to expand...

How would we go about this? I'll do some googleing.

I really think we should at least try to do something about it.

We also need to make the general public aware that a "silencer" doesn't make a firearm completely noiseless.
 
K0na_stinky said:
I really think we should at least try to do something about it.
Click to expand...
I think the most likely outcome of raising a noise-related stink is shiny-new regulations governing ear protection while shooting. So let's not do that, because that's not what we need.

First the registry. Then mag limits. Then de-restricting long arms. Then concealed carry. Then, maybe, suppressors.
 
acrashb said:
I think the most likely outcome of raising a noise-related stink is shiny-new regulations governing ear protection while shooting. So let's not do that, because that's not what we need.

First the registry. Then mag limits. Then de-restricting long arms. Then concealed carry. Then, maybe, suppressors.
Click to expand...

That’s the official list?

I agree about the registry. But I don’t agree with the order of your list.
 
acrashb said:
I think the most likely outcome of raising a noise-related stink is shiny-new regulations governing ear protection while shooting. So let's not do that, because that's not what we need.

First the registry. Then mag limits. Then de-restricting long arms. Then concealed carry. Then, maybe, suppressors.
Click to expand...


agreed, but if we made it a cash cow for the feds (like a tax stamp per Can) they might "want" to do it without needing to use the Hearing protection approach ;)

Hell I would gladly pay $350/500 TAX for a can
 
Aside from proving stupid is incurable, I'm also a poster boy for shooting induced hearing loss. Any effort to make cans available would definitely get my support, both morally (a lot) and financially (a little).

If it saves just one eardrum...
 
sound moderators would be a much easier fight to win i think. showing off our safety concerns is another feather in the cap to attaining the rest of that list. Also the tax on a can would entise the politicains, buying cans would even if only slightly stimulate the economy here in canada, and bring in new buisness. I'm in!
 
Ironman6067 said:
sound moderators would be a much easier fight to win i think. showing off our safety concerns is another feather in the cap to attaining the rest of that list. Also the tax on a can would entise the politicains, buying cans would even if only slightly stimulate the economy here in canada, and bring in new buisness. I'm in!
Click to expand...


Should we make our own thread? See if we can actually get people together and make a move. (I have no idea how)
 
From what I remember a 3db change is perceivable to the human ear and a lot less than that can be measured! If there is one one thing the law isn't is specific.
 
This all sounds very interesting! I would like to see this be passed though the government. I was watching part of the debates and I think if Harper gets in then this might have a shot at happening.
 
Perhaps a reasonable change would be to allow supressors/ moderators which reduce the report to a level below the threshold for hearing loss but do not make firearms totally "silent"
Click to expand...

The threshold for hearing damage from impulse sound is 139 dB. Most centrefire rifles will meter in the 165 dB range. That is a ca 25 dB reduction you are talking about which makes for a reasonable silencer. The best centrefire rifle silencers in the world are only doing about 30-32 dB net reduction.

Most people place a "moderator" at around 10-15 dB which cuts the noise down a fair bit but does not render it hearing safe. There are a lot of factors involved here. The bore size, case capacity and barrel length all play large roles in the noise level.

As an example, this little beast metered at 145 dB. That is roughly a 22-23 dB reduction. The 6.5" barrel contributes to the noise level but the can is quite small by modern proportions. It is only 4.75" long with 3 baffles. Is this a silencer or a moderator? The can is pretty small and it certainly isn't hearing safe but it is producing more than 20 dB reduction.

SPEXPDW1.jpg


The other issue would be that a device which acts as a moderator on a short barreled rifle might produce enough sound reduction to be considered a silencer on a longer barrel. How do you regulate what combination of moderator and barrel length is OK and what isn't?

I prefer not to try to placate the anti's by dumbing down our equipment. If you want a noise reducing device, go for the gold. Don't limit yourself to some half assed moderator that will make nobody happy.

FWIW the use of silencers really makes shooting any firearm a lot nicer. I have been working with these devices for nearly ten years and I still find them absolutely fascinating. It is beyond me why any shooter wouldn't want to use a silencer.


From what I remember a 3db change is perceivable to the human ear and a lot less than that can be measured!
Click to expand...

Human beings can detect a 1 dB difference. That is how we got the dB measurement it was the smallest sound change a normal person could detect. A 3dB change represents a doubling of the sound level due to the logarythmic nature of the dB scale.


If there is one one thing the law isn't is specific.
Click to expand...

Our law is looser than a $20 whore. There is no dB limit specified and who is to say what muzzle device might be determined to be a silencer.
 
Yes we should start a thread, begin the movement, get people talking and push for more info, two heads are better then one, three heads are better then two etc...
 
If I make a device to lower the DB level from my muzzle brake to a similar level without it, have I still created an illegal device?
Click to expand...

Probably because the intention of the device is to reduce noise, even if only by a couple of dB.

Keep in mind that brakes don't make guns louder. They just drive noise and blast backwards so that you hear more of the noise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom