View Full Version : Silencer Q
September 24, 2009, 10:37 PM
Hope this isn't too dumb of a question. I know that a silencer that is added to a gun works and can be bought / made legally with a payment to the gubment.
My question is about a gun with the barrel designed to be intrinsically quieter. Not an add on thingy, but a solid welded seamless one piece that just looks like a 1" OD barrel.
Would that count as a silencer the same way and need the same paperwork and payments? I read the laws, but all that is mumbo jumbo to me. Not going to go into business, or even going to make one -> just curious.
September 25, 2009, 04:09 AM
Not too dumb. To start, here is the definition of a silencer at the federal level from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2008/aprqtr/27cfr479.11.htm
TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND FIREARMS
CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 479_MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS--Table
Sec. 479.11 Meaning of terms.
Muffler or silencer. Any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for the use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
If you add anything to a barrel (with one exception) to reduce noise, then it is a silencer. Every integral silencer I have seen that uses a sleeve around a barrel and machined to look like part of the barrel, or uses a bored out bull barrel filled with baffles, has been built, registered and controlled as a silencer.
The only exception I have seen is the long tubes that attach to shotgun barrels using the choke threads. Even though they lower the noise level at the shooter’s position, the ATF does not control them as silencers.
September 25, 2009, 04:15 PM
Ok then, that's pretty clear -- thanks!
I wonder if we (those of us in the 35+ years and up range) that have hearing issues from firearms can start a class action suit to get built in "silencers" to bring the report down to non-damaging levels? Especially for hunting guns.
I mean a 300 win mag is a lot louder than a .223 -- why do we have to put up with the report?
Yeah - I know there is no "logic" behind gun laws.... Just a rant!
September 25, 2009, 04:39 PM
You can but it will not change the law. Guns built like this will be at least $200 more expensive due to the tax and available only though those dealers that pay the SOT ($500-$1000 per year).
September 26, 2009, 01:23 PM
Surprisingly they haven’t tried to enforce the suppressor laws on air rifles yet.
September 26, 2009, 05:27 PM
I thought they were. Isn't there an ATF FAQ out there that says an integral air rifle silencer is legal without the tax, but that it requires a tax if made to be removable or is cut off?
September 26, 2009, 07:38 PM
It all depends on the agent; and believe me most don’t even know the difference between the m-16 bolt carrier and the ar-15, some companies are sending guns out with m-16 carriers installed and I suppose ATF doesn’t care anymore.
September 26, 2009, 10:22 PM
The ATF is allowed to change it's collective mind as it makes the rules.
A "full auto" bolt carrier does not a machine gun make. Know what I mean?
If they will let us use heavy bolt carriers in our semi autos, good.
September 27, 2009, 08:05 PM
I thought airguns were exempt to regulation due to their use of "shrouds" not silencers.
Would an air rifle with a removable shroud be illegal?
September 27, 2009, 11:48 PM
The way the law is written, if it is made for an air gun but can somehow be attached to a real gun, it is a silencer.
"Somehow" at the tech branch is a challenge not a speculation. They will find a way and what you have will be illegal. Just give them half a chance.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.