I always wondered what would happen if someone was to design from the ground up a gas-operated semi-automatic firearm which just <happens> to use a ridiculously large gas tube, resulting in very little gas overpressure at the muzzle.
Legalize suppressors thread!!! Please move to general discussion
- Thread starter Ironman6067
- Start date
Gentlemen/Ladies,
Seems we are getting off track, I hope we can move forward. It is imperative that we facilitate this change asap.
Dependent upon the federal election, as previously noted, we need to ensure we have the political clout (ie Private members bill or change in the FA regulation) to enhance our point of view to ensure others come on board.
We can have all the facts and figures to support our request to change/challenge the law for "sound suppressors."
Nevertheless, beyond the facts, figures and possible practical demonstration (ie video verses live), we need to strategize to ensure the RCMP(Firearms Program, CFO's etc) do not negate the hard work to move this forward.
We have to think/strategize to predict their thinking/criteria as to why it was the "sound suppressor" was first prohibited, so that we can validate this change.
Would the NRA have experts in this field to assist?
How did the "legislation from other nationalities" bring the opportunity to facilitate the use of "sound suppressors"
Is the legislation readily available on the internet for us to use and if so, do we have the necessary legal counsel to "interpret" the legalese from the other nationalites to create new regualtions with regards to the usage, permits......
Regarding the demonstration, is the Cdn Manufacturer of "sound suppressors" able to provide a "live demonstration" if able to do so and under what conditions?
If you have no will to change it, you have no right to criticize it. ~Author Unknown
Seems we are getting off track, I hope we can move forward. It is imperative that we facilitate this change asap.
Dependent upon the federal election, as previously noted, we need to ensure we have the political clout (ie Private members bill or change in the FA regulation) to enhance our point of view to ensure others come on board.
We can have all the facts and figures to support our request to change/challenge the law for "sound suppressors."
Nevertheless, beyond the facts, figures and possible practical demonstration (ie video verses live), we need to strategize to ensure the RCMP(Firearms Program, CFO's etc) do not negate the hard work to move this forward.
We have to think/strategize to predict their thinking/criteria as to why it was the "sound suppressor" was first prohibited, so that we can validate this change.
Would the NRA have experts in this field to assist?
How did the "legislation from other nationalities" bring the opportunity to facilitate the use of "sound suppressors"
Is the legislation readily available on the internet for us to use and if so, do we have the necessary legal counsel to "interpret" the legalese from the other nationalites to create new regualtions with regards to the usage, permits......
Regarding the demonstration, is the Cdn Manufacturer of "sound suppressors" able to provide a "live demonstration" if able to do so and under what conditions?
If you have no will to change it, you have no right to criticize it. ~Author Unknown
It would have to be somewhere in Alberta or surrounding region. I have a dayjob after all.
I don't mind driving to Edmonton or somewhere that can reasonably be reached in a weekend.
I have a variety of different styles and calibers of suppressors available for demonstration. Soon I will have the proper sound meter to show conclusively how different guns and calibers produce sound.
Hunter1970
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- in the shadows behind you
Let me know if I can help out as well (Alberta). I don't have access to any suppressors , but would be more than willing to donate my time to assist etc.
, but would be more than willing to donate my time to assist etc.I doubt there is much I could do to help, but would be eager to help if there is work to be done.
The impression I get from reading this thread (and I may be wrong), is that most of the interest in suppressors comes from the black rifle crowd rather than farmers and rural Canadians - and that is really too bad. Starting this thread in the black rifle forum makes sense, but I would also start one in the hunting and sporting arms section - those are the people that stand to gain the most from supressors.
Throwing a can on an AR or pistol sounds great (no pun intended), but unless everyone else at the range is shooting with suppressors you will still need hearing protection - so all that is left is the 'because I can' or the 'look cool factor'.
Having lived on a farm for many years I have made many mad scrambles to the gun cabinet to grab a rifle for coyote control. If only the farmers knew how handy it would be to grab a suppressed rifle and shoot without damaging their hearing - most farmers I know of will shoot without even thinking about hearing protection. Between guns and machinery they are down to 50% hearing by age 50. How many rural people have neighbors complain about the noise from gun shots, especially during calving season, which also happens to be gopher season, the most trigger happy time of the year? I don't shoot nearly as much as I would if I did not worry about bothering the neighbors - that being said, it is still quite a lot. My neighbors are much farther away than the average Canadians... you guys could use them even more.
Don't think I am against black rifle application - I am very much for supressors on all firearms, black rifles included... its just that I do things untraditionally. My #1 go to rifle for gophers and coyotes is the Tavor. If the law was not an issue I would have one for each of my Tavor, M14, RFB, and several pistols.
The impression I get from reading this thread (and I may be wrong), is that most of the interest in suppressors comes from the black rifle crowd rather than farmers and rural Canadians - and that is really too bad. Starting this thread in the black rifle forum makes sense, but I would also start one in the hunting and sporting arms section - those are the people that stand to gain the most from supressors.
Throwing a can on an AR or pistol sounds great (no pun intended), but unless everyone else at the range is shooting with suppressors you will still need hearing protection - so all that is left is the 'because I can' or the 'look cool factor'.
Having lived on a farm for many years I have made many mad scrambles to the gun cabinet to grab a rifle for coyote control. If only the farmers knew how handy it would be to grab a suppressed rifle and shoot without damaging their hearing - most farmers I know of will shoot without even thinking about hearing protection. Between guns and machinery they are down to 50% hearing by age 50. How many rural people have neighbors complain about the noise from gun shots, especially during calving season, which also happens to be gopher season, the most trigger happy time of the year? I don't shoot nearly as much as I would if I did not worry about bothering the neighbors - that being said, it is still quite a lot. My neighbors are much farther away than the average Canadians... you guys could use them even more.
Don't think I am against black rifle application - I am very much for supressors on all firearms, black rifles included... its just that I do things untraditionally. My #1 go to rifle for gophers and coyotes is the Tavor. If the law was not an issue I would have one for each of my Tavor, M14, RFB, and several pistols.
I am going to start Legalize Suppressors #2 thread in General Firearms Discussion so as to try to include shooters who may not frequent the Black Rifles forum. Thread #2 will focus on collecting data and working out an argument that can be taken to the government and/or legal counsel.
Sup
Sup
I have severe hearing loss noise suppressors would be awesome and I want them for the great outdoors not just at a range... note to self talk to CPC MP's about this each and every time I meet up with them and yes I meet up with them a lot more than most of you...
Give me some time to put the data together and then arrange me a meeting with an MP or two you think might be amenable to our argument. I will bring the toys to demonstrate our point .... and you will get to try some yourself for the effort.
Ironman6067
CGN Regular
- Location
- NL, Canada
Awesome guys. It's a great start!!!still searching for info to back the cause... Have a few papers and such to go through, will post the links in the new thread
It is great to have "sound suppressor" as an options, but it will be detrimental if you make an arguement so good such that "sound suppressor" becomes "mandatory".
The hearing loss arguement and environment impact agruements are great - but watch out for the potential effect could backfire. I cannot imagine a mandatory use of sound suppressors. Think of the hassle if the government mandates the use of sound suppressors when certain criteria is met, such as when firearms are discharged in properties when there are so many households within certain number of KM of radius!
Good, durable and reliable sound suppressors are expensive - adding a cost of 600 to 2000 extra cost to fireearms ownership will put a lot of people out of the price range. Sure manufacturers will be happy - but make sure this is what you wish for!
Imagine the mandatory use of suppressors - essentially it will put a lot of shooting activities out to extinction.
It is best not to play with the environmental impact card.
The hearing loss arguement and environment impact agruements are great - but watch out for the potential effect could backfire. I cannot imagine a mandatory use of sound suppressors. Think of the hassle if the government mandates the use of sound suppressors when certain criteria is met, such as when firearms are discharged in properties when there are so many households within certain number of KM of radius!
Good, durable and reliable sound suppressors are expensive - adding a cost of 600 to 2000 extra cost to fireearms ownership will put a lot of people out of the price range. Sure manufacturers will be happy - but make sure this is what you wish for!
Imagine the mandatory use of suppressors - essentially it will put a lot of shooting activities out to extinction.
It is best not to play with the environmental impact card.
Just is mandatory suppressor use a legitimate concern and reality should suppressors become legal, I'm not saying is completely out of the realm of possibility given governments natural tendency to dive into areas it shouldn't and regulate things in general but is it realistic that they would ever make it mandatory. Maybe only in the areas where we're seeing contest between suburban sprawl and long time range existence. You want an outdoor range in the middle of a suburban neighbourhood provided proper berms and safety then maybe mandatory suppressors in those areas are no such a bade idea.
If you have a case, a country, state, town where suppressors were made legal and forced every old vet to weld a suppressor onto his priceless one of a kind war collectible rifle devaluing it then please share otherwise I think not pushing forward on the environmental impact point is based on pure speculation. Just my 2 cents worth.
I am not aware of many silencers that approach the $2000 price range. That would have to be a pretty exotic can to demand that kind of price.
In countries where suppressors are not regulated, prices are much more affordable. Even in the US there are rimfire cans selling for around $200. In Finland a rimfire suppressor can be as cheap as $30. I know that suppressor prices in New Zealand are very affordable as well.
It all comes down to how much technology you want to buy. A Ferrari costs more than a Yugo but then you get more performance. That Ferrari's are expensive is no reason to ban all cars.
Suppressors would be great for ranges with creeping development right up to their doorstep. Driving up to the Lower Mainland's one and only rifle range it's scary to see all the new housing suburbs with the guarantee noise complaints once the new home owners move in. Pretty obvious who'll lose out.
