Suppressors?

^ +1. Good point. How many motor vehicle accidents happen every year? Better take the mufflers off of cars so we can hear them coming.


Better make pellet guns louder too then. Might not be able to be lethal, but lets see how you feel getting shot by a pellet at several hundred fps from a 12 year old kid out shooting gophers. They are not high powered but the point behind it is the same. Also, if somebody gets shot by a rifle, it is because of accidental discharge, mistaking someone for wild life or because of murder. A suppressor does not prevent anyone of those things. 99.999999% of the times that a gun goes off it is being aimed at something so if a human is going to get shot, it is most likely on purpose which would happen regardless of a suppressor.
 
I sincerely doubt most idiots are going to lay out an extra 600 to 1000 bucks for a suppressor. However, banning them because some idiot might have one, compared to their obvious benefits, is comparing apples and dog####.
 
OldSavage said:
A friend walking through the simcoe county forest as she does everyday and gets shot and killed by a hunter thinking she was a deer.

Some boys from the city shooting in my neighbours back yard thinking its crown land and killing there dog accidentally. The sound of the rifle was the only thing that kept their kid from walking down the same path as that dog to go fishing in the grand river.

Unlike the antis I have rationale behind my opinions and I generally keep them to myself.
Click to expand...

You claim to know what a supressed rifle sounds like but apparently you do not. For if you did, then you'd know that the scenarios that you've presented here are plausible.

How does your friend being killed accidently by a hunter have anything to do with supressor use? Obviously, none as the hunter wasn't using a supressor. You're trying to draw a connection here that clearly doesn't exist.

If there are "city boys" shooting in your neighbour's back yard then it's your neighbour and the boys responsibility for the death of the dog. Like it's been said many times over, supressors reduce muzzle blast noise levels - not eliminate it. The neighbour's kid would have heard the shot.

I don't think you give people enough credit here. An individual who is likely purchase a supressor would generalby be considered knowledgeable, considerate, and responsible by nature. Shooters who are in the market for such devices are not novices to the shooting sports and are highly unlikely to be involved in the situations you describe.

I like the analogy made to irresponsible drivers of automobiles. People who act carelessly are a danger to fellow motorists and the general public and are usually prohibited from driving as a form of punishment. We don't allow them to continue driving by cutting off their mufflers so that we can hear them comming from a further distance away.
 
You all make good points. Making me wish I hadn't open my mouth in the first place. :)

I wasn't aware that so many people felt that way about these devices so in turn my enlightened has been enlightened.
I've only heard suppresser gun fire from behind the line so I will take the word of the many people that have given their opinions and I will take credit for my own ignorance.

The muffler analogy seems like the standard in this conversation. More people are killed in Canada by vehicular accidents than firearms related accidents or at least I'm assuming anyways. I believe it is a bit of an apples to oranges analogy but the point is well taken.

If you are saying suppressed fire would still have given that kid the appropriate warning than I believe the many of you who have said that. As for the dog? That wasn't really an important aspect of the story but he was killed by a stray bullet or at least the guys said it was. The guys were target shooting not hunting.

As for the lady? Once again it had to do with idiots not suppressors and wasn't meant to be directly related to suppressors. I should have clarified as I'm not that ignorant.

Last time I try to play the devils advocate. Sorry for the ignorance.
 
We should set up a class action lawsuit and SUE the Govt for putting us in danger of injury.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what the Brits did and they won.


Irony will be some lawyer may actually win THEN shooters will all ##### that they need to spend another $$$ to suppress each rifle :)
Click to expand...

Check out the existing threads on this topic. There are always shooters who bring up this issue as a reason we shouldn't seek to have suppressors legalized. It depresses me to think about it. :(


I would love to see this study you are talking about as it sounds like complete horse s**t to me.
Click to expand...

“Comparison of Muzzle Suppression and Ear-level Hearing Protection in Firearm Use”
Matthew Parker Branch, MD, 400 Hospital Drive, Suite 115, Corsicana, TX 75110
parkerbranch@yahoo.com
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/02/18/0194599811398872.abstract

Doctor Parker Branch is an otolaryngologist so you may want to think twice before telling him he is full of shat. I admit to knowing squat about the ears and hearing but I do know how silencers are sound tested and Dr Parker Branch used the correct sound testing protocols in that arena.


As for being able to hear a gun shot and how that could be safer? I think its pretty self explanatory.

Some idiot is shooting over your corn field, the same one you choose to walk your dog through. Wouldn't you rather be able to hear the shot.
Click to expand...

I don't see how a loud shot is safer so you are going to have to explain it to me. Considering that rifle bullets travel at 2.5 times the speed of sound, by the time you hear the shot, the bullet has hit whatever it is going to hit. Then of course we have the issue of the sonic crack which is ca 150+ dB. A suppressor cannot muffle that and in fact it is that noise which you are much more likely to hear while out walking your dog. The sound of the shot itself is incidental to your argument.
 
There's nothing I'd love more than to be able to put a suppressor on a couple of my rifles. Is there any talk of perhaps changing some laws in regards to civilians being able to use them? If not, that definitely something worthwhile writing your MP about....
Click to expand...

Here ya go. Written and researched in Canada by Canadian shooters. All the information you would ever need to justify the legalization of suppressors.

http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/Images/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf
 
Some boys from the city shooting in my neighbours back yard thinking its crown land and killing there dog accidentally. The sound of the rifle was the only thing that kept their kid from walking down the same path as that dog to go fishing in the grand river.

Please don't classify me with the anti's. I just think we're all doing just fine without suppressors.
Click to expand...

The sonic crack of a .30 cal bullet is approximately 155 dB. That is as loud as a 9mm handgun without a suppressor. In your example above, the kid would still have heard the shot no problem. A sound suppressor does not hide the fact a shot is fired.


I know what suppressed fire sounds like and I realize it isn't as its portrayed in Hollywood. But it definetly isn't as distinct or identifiable as normal gun fire and that was what I meant by that one experience. I've only heard suppresser gun fire from behind the line so I will take the word of the many people that have given their opinions and I will take credit for my own ignorance.
Click to expand...

A suppressed rifle sounds quite different from behind than it does from out front because the muzzle blast is greatly reduced we can now hear other sounds more clearly like the sonic crack and the bullet impact.


I wouldn't be upset or concerned if suppressors were legallized, I also wouldn't run out and buy one.
Click to expand...

I have never yet met someone who would say that after having spent some time actually shooting suppressed. In my experience the reaction to suppressed firearms is overwhelmingly positive. Spend a day shooting full powered rifles without the need for hearing protection and most people very quickly recognize just how civilized shooting suppressed is.
 
I stand corrected. Thank you for the link Saputin.
I know you build these devices it just seems odd that conventional hearing protection isn't sufficient.

Thank you for the informative posts. My opinions on idiots will remain the same (shooters I was speaking of in my examples) but my opinion of suppressors and noise have been enlightened.

I do hate wearing hearing protection and find it interferes with getting good position from the bench.

Thanks all,
 
That's a cost I would be happy to bear. SO much nicer especially with the boomers.

BUT it should sure screw up a bunch of competition classes :)

I believe France requires suppressors and maybe UK.

Create a large volume industry and costs will fall. We may not need them as fancy as some spec ops units that can handle a zillion rds in full auto.

I am sure there will be ways to make consumer grade cans for a reasonable price.

1 million units up for grabs......

Jerry
 
An Inuit organization in Nunavut was looking into suppressers for harvesting Walrus do to the fact that males walrus do trample young one's in some cases, because of loud rifles...the government suppys granades to our inuit organizations for our whale hunts and why not suppressers? I don't know what ever came of this but it made sense at the time.
 
On a recent hunting trip in SA , I had the pleasure of shooting my friend's .308 Musgrave rifle with suppressor [pics in hunting forum] and I have to say that if given the choice I would definetly have at least one suppressed rifle. They really do make the shooting experience that much more enjoyable. I would say that the .308 I was shooting sounded like a .22lr. This is a cause I'd be willing to put $ behind , anyone else?
 
I'm all for suppressors whether it be for range guns or hunting. I'd personally use one when hunting. I added a muzzle brake to tame recoil on my magnum and have to set up away from others on the range when practicing. Sometimes that's not possible and I can tell it puts off nearby shooters.
 
I would get behind this with a donation. The report of a rifle seems to be the biggest complaint of persons living in proximity to a range. If they don't hear it they don' know its happening. This should make things easier for all shooters. Just as long as it can be used for hunting, an impromptu range etc. and not just on a registered ranges.
 
I would love to spin a suppressor on a few rifles of mine. One day we will catch up with the other commonwealth countries. Hmm better put me down for a 6 pack of cans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom