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

[2bad4u2]

If any of you (other than Suputin) have ever heard a supresed firearm firing supersonic ammunition, you'd know it's anything but "silent". Under such circumstances I'd still be inclined to wear at least some form of decent hearing protection.

I think with the wholesale paranoia that exists in this country towards firearms, it would be a hard sell to the general public. However, having said that, if the right "spin" were made for it's argument (ex: hearing loss prevention), you'd stand a much better chance of at least having the argument heard.

There'd have to be an entre public awareness/education campaign that would have to exist to de-bunk all the myths, misconceptions, and ignorance of sound supressors. Furthermore, sound supressors shouldn't be referred to as "silencers" as it has a negative stereo typical connotation to it.

A much more palatable approach may be to get the classification changed from being a prohibited device to a restricted device. You can own them but you can only use them while at the range and they must be registered just like restricted firearms.

 

[Miltiades]

But if you cannot use them for hunting, when most people are not using any kind of ear protection, the logical come back of the anti's will be "wear ear protection at the range and no problem!".

 

[haha49]

Simple answer.. any device that reduces the noise or report of a firearm.. now a muzzle break just directs it some where else so it doesnt remove the noise..

 

[haha49]

But if you cannot use them for hunting, when most people are not using any kind of ear protection, the logical come back of the anti's will be "wear ear protection at the range and no problem!".

I know a few people that wish that the gun range up the hill would have silencers because they complain about the noise

 

[Suputin]

If any of you (other than Suputin) have ever heard a supresed firearm firing supersonic ammunition, you'd know it's anything but "silent". Under such circumstances I'd still be inclined to wear at least some form of decent hearing protection.

There would be no need. Modern silencers are almost all (with only a couple of notable exceptions) hearing safe.

In fact this guy did a scientific study and showed that silencers are considerably more effective at protecting hearing than the best ear protection.

http://oto.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/18/0194599811398872.abstract

I know a few people that wish that the gun range up the hill would have silencers because they complain about the noise

This is the second reason why silencers are better than ear plugs. Silencers protect everyone in the area. Ear plugs only protect the wearer.

 

[McNasty]

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.

What type of baffles are you using?

 

[pres717]

for example: if it changes the decibel level by 10 then it is prohib.

If that is so then we could effectively suppress a .22LR almost completely.

 

[pres717]

I'd like to see us like Finland, where NOT using a suppressor can be punished by law in some areas.
-M

I actually read somewhere that in the UK also you may use suppressors. I guess Europeans had their fair share of gun noise over the years.

 

[pres717]

here is no known reason to ban their use, especially at ranges. Where the density of shooters is incredible high.

I support their use 100%, but I am surprised that the government wouldn't at least allow them restricted to ranges. After reading through here, a couple of great points were raised such as the close proximity of shooters and keeping the noise down for the benefit of the shooter's ears and not disturbing the neighborhood/wildlife that may be nearby.

 

[PBinWA]

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.

I think this is a key point that most lay people don't realize. Other than a few subsonic calibers (which subsequently have a limited range) - suppressors just make the gun quieter. Certainly not "silent" with larger calibers.

I would think that anyone that has ever lived near a neighbor that shoots frequently would welcome less noise.

 

[Suputin]

What type of baffles are you using?

They are proprietary to me. They are like nothing you have ever seen or heard of.

Quote:
Originally Posted by driller212
for example: if it changes the decibel level by 10 then it is prohib.

Originally posted by Pres717
If that is so then we could effectively suppress a .22LR almost completely.

Huh? This makes no sense at all.