Silencers, please.

T

texdores

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
As we are engaging in wishing for the improbable within the Canadian Firearms Act, I should like to propose that silencers be made available to qualified, law-abiding citizens of this country.

Silencers would enable more shooting ranges to stay open. With increasing and encroaching populations many ranges have been closed down in the past, because of residential developments that sprang up around them.
Hunting/pest control would be less objectionable near built-up areas.
As we are not engaged in spying or terrorist activities as a group, I don't see any objections to the use of silencers for sporting purposes.
We have plenty of gun laws that make illegal activities unattractive to the majority of shooters and the use of silencers could be similarily controlled, if necessary, as are restricted firearms at present
I wonder how the ban of silencers in Canada came about. Anyone? Silencers are legal in other jurisdictions.
 
Last edited:
texdores said:
As we are engaging in wishing for the improbable within the Canadian Firearms Act I should like to propse that silencers are made available to qualified, law-abiding citizens of this country.

Here are my reasons:
Click to expand...
Those are wise, outstanding reasons;)
I'm sure we will win:p
 
Well, it was a joke:)
I'm sure it was an typing/posting mistake.
But let's hear what he has to say when he posts all the info.
I encourage him to say his opinion:)
 
Several European countries allow them, some encourage them (Maybe even require in built up areas?).

Its not on my urgent list, but for those that want to pursue this, I say GO FOR IT!
The more poop-grenades we can lob into WC's lap, the more we can keep her off balance. For far too long, we have sat back, stayed quiet, and only reacted to their calls for more bans.
If some here want to re-open mag limits, great!
Others want rid of the entire 12-x prohib fiasco, I support that too!
The SAP non-issueing problem, hit it hard!
ATC/CCW, yes,most definitely!

My personal thing is a LIFETIME PAL. I would also like to see concealed carry, but that is second to a lifetime PAL.
After all, what good is a 30 round mag, if you have to pay $2000 per year for your PAL, and there are NO ranges, and only 3 gun stores in the country, because everyone else crumpled at the thought of a $2000 PAL?
Remember what the "P" stands for. (Possession, you can't keep what you currently own)
 
That would be nice. Shooting at the range without the bulky hearing protection.
This would be worth pursuing since I don't know what makes them illegal in the first place. The boom doesn't make a firearm anymore lethal in the wrong hands.
 
I remember my dad explaining (ok, complaining bitterly) back in the 70's that the gun control laws were asinine, and used the regs against silencers as an example. As written, they were far too inclusive. Correct me if things have changed, but it went something like "anything that is designed to muffle or dampen the sound of the shot" (is illegal). By that reasoning, if you'd planted hedges on either side of the range, to keep the noise down, they'd be considered silencers and thus illegal.
And in a blatant piece of thread- hijacking:
How I wish I'd kept his letters written to various government departments, newspaper editors, and politicians over the years, protesting gun control laws. They were concise, factual, calm, and inarguable. I'm so glad to have recently decided to seriously take up target shooting again; a sport I used to enjoy so much as a kid. We'd walk for close to a mile (at 40 below in the blowing snow, of course!) carrying our own rifles, right through the PMQ's (imagine that!) to get to the indoor range at CFB Cold Lake, and spend hours there with the .22's. Too many years went by without much involvement with target shooting, and I know he's gotta be happy wherever he is that I'm taking it up again. He stood up for gun owners, so will I.
 
First step is to stop using THEIR words... they aren't silencers, are not designed to silence anything, and due to ballistic crack cannot ever be silencers. To paraphrase Oleg Volk; Cars have mufflers, So should rifles.

Calling them silencers falls right into their trap. :(

Pics courtesy of Mr Volk
why1474.jpg

rem600_UY9O8971.jpg

hearing3829.jpg
 
Last edited:
Good point Canuckgunny, sound suppressors are really enjoyable to play with. But if you go sub sonic on a 45 you don't get the crack either.

The pointy headed beurocrats probably watch to much hollywood and think we will all turn into silent assassins if we are allowed to own them. After all, anytime some law abiding citizen gets a little liberty with a firearm they instantly turn into a deviant criminal.:rolleyes:
 
safeguardguy said:
The pointy headed beurocrats probably watch to much hollywood and think we will all turn into silent assassins if we are allowed to own them. After all, anytime some law abiding citizen gets a little liberty with a firearm they instantly turn into a deviant criminal.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well since our pointy headed decision makers base most of their decisions on perception and skewed statistics, I can't see them suddenly basing a decision on real facts anytime soon.
Remember Toronto's major wanting all handguns banned! The 2006 stats for homicides in Winnipeg showed nine w/ firearms and 15 by other means, and in Toronto firearm's related killings droped 46.7%.
So obviously the use of silencers isn't about to affect anything law abiding people do or criminals do.
In the mean time, we'll have to improvise and save those 375ml pop bottles.
 
Canada is the only country in the G8 that does not allow citizens to possess silencers. We are essentially the only modern western nation that does not trust law abiding citizens to own silencers. But I guess that is what you get for being a "subject" and not a "citizen". :mad:

FWIW While the term "silencer" is not technically correct, the word is commonly used by many professionals and cognescenti. It is as valid a name as any for these devices.

Al Paulson, probably the world's authority on sound suppressors, uses the term "silencer" on the cover of his books.

20307.gif


“prohibited device” means

(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,
Click to expand...
While I doubt that a row of bushes would be legally considered as a silencer, a lot of our law depends on semantics. So if you admitted in court that bushes were planted to muffle shooting noise, then it is possible the bushes could be considered to be a prohibited device.

However the law is definately vague enough to include subsonic ammo in the definition of a prohibited device. :eek: Subsonic ammo will definately reduce muzzle signature by several dB up to 10 or more dB depending on caliber.

The most troubling aspect of the law as written above is it contains no action level to determine what constitutes the muffling of a shot. Thus any device that reduces muzzle report by as much as 1 dB could be classed as a prohibitive device. Many common muzzle devices like bluper tubes and muzzle brakes can reduce sound pressure levels at the muzzle by up to 2 - 3 dB.

On top of this, precious few government agencies have any clue how to properly sound test firearms and silencers. There is a specific test protocol and specific test equipment that must be used or the results will be junk.
 
Hi
I lived in Europe for some time in the 80's, did a bit of shooting in Switzerland, where silencers were fondly thought of. I tried out a few and they worked pretty well. The ones I used and seen used were moderately priced, some designed for only a few shots, some designed for more use by being able to replace the core. The ones that were designed for longevity were very expensive. I would like to see the ban on all prohib items lifted for law abiding citizens, however, shooting hundreds of rounds a day from silencers would get a little costly, unless the design has changed.

Just a thought
Steve
 
Last edited:
shooting hundreds of rounds a day from silencers would get a little costly, unless the design has changed.
Click to expand...
Rifle caliber silencers are essentially self cleaning. The maintenance requirements of such devices are very minimal.

.22 rimfire silencers tend to fill up with crusted lead and carbon and do need to be cleaned semi-regularily.

In Finland, where silencers are not controlled at all, prices are very reasonable. In USA, where silencers are highly controlled and taxed, prices tend to be much higher.
 
What if the device was primarily intended and designed to reduce/filter blast matter from the firearm? Something that would reduce exposure to lead vapour. A mini scrubber of sorts. You would need to change the baffling --- er - a - oh, I mean filtering matter every few hundred rounds.

Hey Armedsask - how about another project?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom