NFA for home defence or CCW?

Poplin · January 31, 2001, 11:32 AM

I live in a state where NFA stuff is unavailable, so this is a moot point for me.

However, I was thinking it would be nice to be able to use a suppressed weapon for defending the homestead. Size isn't much of an issue in your house--but noise surely is. I don't want to touch off any centerfire round without hearing protection--indoors or out. I don't want any hearing loss. For that matter, it is probably also a "tactical" consideration to be able to hear after firing off a few rounds.

Anyone use a suppressor for your home defence gun? How many of you have one on your CCW piece?

ArmySon · January 31, 2001, 03:41 PM

Personally, I would not recommend it unless you have very deep pockets. For starters, your weapon may be taken as evidence. I don't know about you but the idea of having my $800 gun + $1000 suppressor taken isn't enjoyable.

Then you'll have to deal with the prosecutors raising questions on why you're using an NFA weapon for defense. Yes it's complete BS but since when did the other side make sense?

Remember, I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on tv so take it fwiw. I'll just stick with my "regular" firearms for defense and let the pricey ones sit in the safe.

buzz_knox · January 31, 2001, 03:56 PM

Legally, you could explain it by saying you wanted to prevent hearing damage in the event of a shooting.

Would I do it? Nope. I'm too cheap. But man, imagine a suppressed MP-5 10mm as a home defense weapon!

Poplin · January 31, 2001, 04:45 PM

...But we all spend lots of money on guns. Why not spend big bucks on that One Gun to have your bedside? Yeah, I know there's no such thing as the One Gun...

As for the police keeping a $2000 gun/suppresor combo after the shooting, it would probably be a minor setback in the whole aftermath of shooting someone. You'd probably spend much more on a lawyer. Plenty of people use expensive hardware for self defense. Heck, the police just might confiscate all of your guns.

It would already be difficult to defend yourself in court after the prosecutor points out that a high capacity, undetectable Glock with high-tech extra-power hollowpoint ammunition was used.

For legal purposes, I have always thought it would be a good idea to have a nonthreatening-looking gun as home defense. Perhaps a gaudy multicolored IPSC race gun, or a Winchester lever action with "Gene Autry Singing Cowboy Commemorative Edition" or "Save the Whales" engraved on the receiver.

But a suppressor would be oh so functional...

buzz_knox · January 31, 2001, 04:53 PM

"Save the Whales" on a HD weapon?! I love it!

BigG · January 31, 2001, 05:08 PM

you will not even hear the blast. There is some natural defense mechanism where your ears shut off at the appropriate moment.

Country Boy · January 31, 2001, 05:12 PM

I agree that when you are in certain situations, (hunting springs to mind for me) that you do not notice the sound of the shot much. However, damage to the ear still takes place. I would be all for having a suppressed gun beside my bed, as long as it didn't negatively change the balance and pointability of the gun. In staying with the "save the whales" theme, perhaps one could paint a nice meadow scene on the silencer to make it look more friendly.

johnwill · January 31, 2001, 08:26 PM

Actually, supressors are not all that expensive, you can buy them in the $200-300 range. Add the $200 ATF tax, and it's still a reasonable price. I've lusted for one, just to shoot at the range, but for the house gun it's a great option.

greg c · February 2, 2001, 01:32 PM

From a tactical standpoint, a suppressed weapon should have less muzzle flash, a definite plus during nightime confrontations.

That said, some suppressed handguns do not function reliably, something that should not be a problem with a high quality piece from AWC or Gemtech. Also, if you practiced more with the suppressor off, and then put it back on before you laid the weapon on your nightstand, you will be handling a weapon with much different pointing characteristics.

All of this is conjecture, as I don't have any suppressed pieces, but I have talked with the AWC guys and gals, and handled some of their pieces at a show. Still haven't gotten to fire one yet, though.

George Helser · February 3, 2001, 01:26 AM

Poplin,

What are the chances you will need to defend your life in your home?
If the risk to your life is high and you cannot move to a safer place, I would use anything
I found effective to save my life. Who cares what the lawyers will do to you if you just
avoided death.

A suppressor will:
a) protect your hearing so you can detect the threat.
b) mostly or totally eliminate flash which will protect your night vision and conceal your
position.
c) Improve your accuracy

Good luck!

Regards,
George
In sunny Arizona

Hal · February 3, 2001, 05:53 AM

Could I? Yes. I live in an NFA *enlightened* State.
Would I? No.
The criminal side doesn't bother me as much as the civil side. That being said, I don't want the distraction of having to consider that in a SHTF scenerio.

Side note: What everyone else is saying sounds like 100% pure sound horse sense. Why is it that when some anal politition spouts about *common sense*, it usually means the opposite? I mean really. When I think of protecting life and limb, hearing is part of that right? Some low life POS isn't an even trade for my hearing.

Captain Bligh · February 3, 2001, 10:34 AM

I wouldn't use a suppressed weapon for HD myself but I'd like to add a clarifying comment to what BigG said. It may be that in the heat of a SHTF situation, you may not "hear" the report of the gun. That has to do with brain chemistry and adrenalin. The sound is not registered in the hearing area of the brain. That is NOT to say that the physiological effect of sound waves damaging hearing is not occuring. Your hearing can still be damaged in that situation even though you may not "hear" it.

Guess I did learn something from sitting in all those brain physiology classes. Whaddaya know?

RJ

[Edited by Captain Bligh on 02-04-2001 at 12:54 AM]

Marko Kloos · February 3, 2001, 11:58 AM

There are just too many lawyers and DAs who would try the "assassination with a silencer" and "evil assault machine gun" aspect, and too many morons in the general populace that would buy it and put you in the slammer for a few decades.

I like the idea of a cute-looking home defense gun. A custom finish in candy colors and grip panels with cartoon characters come to mind as sound alterations. I would pay big bucks to have someone make me a set of lavender "Hello Kitty" grips for my Firestar or my *&* Model 411.

January 31, 2001, 04:45 PM	#4
Poplin Member Join Date: April 11, 1999 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 97	Indeed it would be expensive... ...But we all spend lots of money on guns. Why not spend big bucks on that One Gun to have your bedside? Yeah, I know there's no such thing as the One Gun... As for the police keeping a $2000 gun/suppresor combo after the shooting, it would probably be a minor setback in the whole aftermath of shooting someone. You'd probably spend much more on a lawyer. Plenty of people use expensive hardware for self defense. Heck, the police just might confiscate all of your guns. It would already be difficult to defend yourself in court after the prosecutor points out that a high capacity, undetectable Glock with high-tech extra-power hollowpoint ammunition was used. For legal purposes, I have always thought it would be a good idea to have a nonthreatening-looking gun as home defense. Perhaps a gaudy multicolored IPSC race gun, or a Winchester lever action with "Gene Autry Singing Cowboy Commemorative Edition" or "Save the Whales" engraved on the receiver. But a suppressor would be oh so functional...

January 31, 2001, 05:08 PM	#6
BigG Senior Member Join Date: May 19, 1999 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 4,334	If you are in a SHTF situation... you will not even hear the blast. There is some natural defense mechanism where your ears shut off at the appropriate moment. __________________ o "The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC o "In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Mark Twain o "They have gun control in Cuba. They have universal health care in Cuba. So why do they want to come here?" Paul Harvey o TODAY WE CARVE OUT OUR OWN OMENS! Leonidas, Thermopylae, 480 BC

February 3, 2001, 11:58 AM	#13
Marko Kloos Senior Member Join Date: January 12, 2000 Location: Enfield, NH Posts: 5,521	There are just too many lawyers and DAs who would try the "assassination with a silencer" and "evil assault machine gun" aspect, and too many morons in the general populace that would buy it and put you in the slammer for a few decades. I like the idea of a cute-looking home defense gun. A custom finish in candy colors and grip panels with cartoon characters come to mind as sound alterations. I would pay big bucks to have someone make me a set of lavender "Hello Kitty" grips for my Firestar or my & Model 411. __________________ "The right to buy weapons is the right to be free." --A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher the munchkin wrangler.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

January 31, 2001, 11:32 AM	#1
Poplin Member Join Date: April 11, 1999 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 97	I live in a state where NFA stuff is unavailable, so this is a moot point for me. However, I was thinking it would be nice to be able to use a suppressed weapon for defending the homestead. Size isn't much of an issue in your house--but noise surely is. I don't want to touch off any centerfire round without hearing protection--indoors or out. I don't want any hearing loss. For that matter, it is probably also a "tactical" consideration to be able to hear after firing off a few rounds. Anyone use a suppressor for your home defence gun? How many of you have one on your CCW piece?

January 31, 2001, 03:41 PM	#2
ArmySon Staff Alumnus Join Date: April 14, 2000 Posts: 2,926	Personally, I would not recommend it unless you have very deep pockets. For starters, your weapon may be taken as evidence. I don't know about you but the idea of having my $800 gun + $1000 suppressor taken isn't enjoyable. Then you'll have to deal with the prosecutors raising questions on why you're using an NFA weapon for defense. Yes it's complete BS but since when did the other side make sense? Remember, I'm no lawyer and I don't play one on tv so take it fwiw. I'll just stick with my "regular" firearms for defense and let the pricey ones sit in the safe.

January 31, 2001, 03:56 PM	#3
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	Legally, you could explain it by saying you wanted to prevent hearing damage in the event of a shooting. Would I do it? Nope. I'm too cheap. But man, imagine a suppressed MP-5 10mm as a home defense weapon!

January 31, 2001, 04:53 PM	#5
buzz_knox Senior Member Join Date: December 2, 1999 Location: Knoxville, in the Free State of Tennesse Posts: 4,190	"Save the Whales" on a HD weapon?! I love it!

January 31, 2001, 05:12 PM	#7
Country Boy Senior Member Join Date: January 26, 2000 Location: Northern Border Posts: 699	I agree that when you are in certain situations, (hunting springs to mind for me) that you do not notice the sound of the shot much. However, damage to the ear still takes place. I would be all for having a suppressed gun beside my bed, as long as it didn't negatively change the balance and pointability of the gun. In staying with the "save the whales" theme, perhaps one could paint a nice meadow scene on the silencer to make it look more friendly.

January 31, 2001, 08:26 PM	#8
johnwill Senior Member Join Date: April 6, 2000 Location: PA Posts: 3,451	Actually, supressors are not all that expensive, you can buy them in the $200-300 range. Add the $200 ATF tax, and it's still a reasonable price. I've lusted for one, just to shoot at the range, but for the house gun it's a great option.

February 2, 2001, 01:32 PM	#9
greg c Senior Member Join Date: May 23, 2000 Location: Phoenix Az Posts: 113	From a tactical standpoint, a suppressed weapon should have less muzzle flash, a definite plus during nightime confrontations. That said, some suppressed handguns do not function reliably, something that should not be a problem with a high quality piece from AWC or Gemtech. Also, if you practiced more with the suppressor off, and then put it back on before you laid the weapon on your nightstand, you will be handling a weapon with much different pointing characteristics. All of this is conjecture, as I don't have any suppressed pieces, but I have talked with the AWC guys and gals, and handled some of their pieces at a show. Still haven't gotten to fire one yet, though.

February 3, 2001, 01:26 AM	#10
George Helser Senior Member Join Date: November 25, 2000 Location: Scottsdale AZ Posts: 242	Poplin, What are the chances you will need to defend your life in your home? If the risk to your life is high and you cannot move to a safer place, I would use anything I found effective to save my life. Who cares what the lawyers will do to you if you just avoided death. A suppressor will: a) protect your hearing so you can detect the threat. b) mostly or totally eliminate flash which will protect your night vision and conceal your position. c) Improve your accuracy Good luck! Regards, George In sunny Arizona

February 3, 2001, 05:53 AM	#11
Hal Senior Member Join Date: October 9, 1998 Location: Ohio USA Posts: 8,563	Could I? Yes. I live in an NFA enlightened State. Would I? No. The criminal side doesn't bother me as much as the civil side. That being said, I don't want the distraction of having to consider that in a SHTF scenerio. Side note: What everyone else is saying sounds like 100% pure sound horse sense. Why is it that when some anal politition spouts about common sense, it usually means the opposite? I mean really. When I think of protecting life and limb, hearing is part of that right? Some low life POS isn't an even trade for my hearing.

February 3, 2001, 10:34 AM	#12
Captain Bligh Senior Member Join Date: April 5, 2000 Posts: 453	I wouldn't use a suppressed weapon for HD myself but I'd like to add a clarifying comment to what BigG said. It may be that in the heat of a SHTF situation, you may not "hear" the report of the gun. That has to do with brain chemistry and adrenalin. The sound is not registered in the hearing area of the brain. That is NOT to say that the physiological effect of sound waves damaging hearing is not occuring. Your hearing can still be damaged in that situation even though you may not "hear" it. Guess I did learn something from sitting in all those brain physiology classes. Whaddaya know? RJ [Edited by Captain Bligh on 02-04-2001 at 12:54 AM]