To Silence or Not to Silence

[Doc Holliday 1950]

What are your thoughts about ditching all the laws about buying a silencer so as Hunters one doesn't blow out their ear drums?? The second question is do you want every Tom Dick and Harry to be able to have a silencer on their Pistols or Revolvers.???

[KennyFSU]

I put in the wait time for mine, no regrets.

I wouldn't mind seeing everyone at the range with a can on their guns, lots of benefits.

In the UK, it's considered rude NOT to run a can on their guns.

[TrueBlue711]

Silencers are probably one of the best accessories you can get for you gun. I'm really hoping the HPA passes so more people can get one. I bought two and I'm waiting on the paperwork to go through. Can't wait!
If/when the HPA passes, I'm sure you'll need to go through a background check when buying one just like with purchasing a gun. That should keep most Toms Dicks and Harrys from getting one if they have a history. If a criminal REALLY wanted to get one, they'll get one through other avenues like they do already. I think most criminals are more about concealment vs sound. It would be harder to conceal a pistol with a silencer than one without. But I could be wrong. Not a criminal expert.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by DH1950

The second question is do you want every Tom Dick and Harry to be able to have a silencer on their Pistols or Revolvers.???

Yes, though I doubt many revolver owners would use them.

Originally Posted by DH1950

What are your thoughts about ditching all the laws about buying a silencer so as Hunters one doesn't blow out their ear drums??

There should be no prohibitions on these.

As a practical matter, on a bolt action rifle that isn't going to blow a bunch of junk back at the shooter, they make sense so long as they don't destroy accuracy. Same goes for my rimfires; a suppressor might blow all kinds of crud back into the action, but a rimfire is so dirty anyway that the difference might not matter.

Suppressors on full power ARs seem to have some disadvantages.

[T. O'Heir]

"...one doesn't blow out their ear drums..." The idea of needing a suppressor when hunting is a fad brought on by stupid laws changing. It has nothing do to with hearing protection. That's just an excuse. Mind you, so was the idea that criminals would use 'em.
And they do not work on revolvers.
"...suppressor might blow..." Nope. Think in terms of your vehicle's muffler. It's the same thing.

[Pond, James Pond]

Silencers are probably one of the best accessories you can get for you gun.

This.

On my .308 it tames the recoil and makes shooting way less tiring on the ears. Why anyone would want to shoot without one when hunting is mystery to me as is why authorities don't allow it.

As for every T, D and H.... if we don't mind them buying guns why should we mind them getting cans too?

The thing I wish is that the shooting and non-shooting worlds would understand that a silenced shot and a Hollywood silenced shot are NOT the same thing....

It would make so many people realise how redundant current restrictions are....

[rock185]

I don't own any, but have shot suppressed firearms. If not for the paperwork, I'd probably have one or more. If new legislation significantly eases or eliminates the current process, I may be in the market myself. If Tom, Dick and Harry are otherwise legal to own firearms, I could care less if they have suppressors.

[DPI7800]

The idea of needing a suppressor when hunting is a fad brought on by stupid laws changing. It has nothing do to with hearing protection.

Not sure what was the intended meaning of this, but it sounds like you think suppressor are not needed for hunting. Is this correct?

If so why would you think or say that? Is it because you destroyed your hearing years ago and can't hear anymore? Or is it from ignorance, thinking that one shot won't hurt anything?

Personally I am all for using suppressors for hunting. The only real draw back to using a can is they add typically a minimum of 6" to the barrel length.

Love to know the reasoning.

[armoredman]

The second question is do you want every Tom Dick and Harry to be able to have a silencer on their Pistols or Revolvers.???

I want every law abiding citizen to be able to own the firearms and accessories of their choice, such as suppressors, short barreled shotguns and rifles. and select fire firearms.
I would get a can for the CZ 527M and the BREN 805 for hunting, if the prices aren't outrageous. We'll see.

[Sharkbite]

A suppressed gun is also nice as a HD weapon. Guns discharged inside are LOUD

[444]

What are your thoughts about ditching all the laws about buying a silencer so as Hunters one doesn't blow out their ear drums?? The second question is do you want every Tom Dick and Harry to be able to have a silencer on their Pistols or Revolvers.???

To directly answer your question: I am all for ditching all the laws about buying a silencer for whatever reason (hunting or otherwise).

Yes, I want EVERY Tom, Dick, and Harry to be able to have a silencer on whatever they are shooting. It really annoys me when I arrive at my local gun club and find that I am the only one there. I start shooting (suppressed) and I don't need any hearing protection. I am not sweating under those muffs. I am aware of what is going on around me. I can hear nature: turkeys calling and all that. Then someone else shows up and ruins the whole experience for me by making me put on hearing protection because they are about to make all kinds of noise.


Let me ask a question. I see all kinds of arguments made by gun owners to de-regulate suppressors. But my question asks a question TO the question;

What good purpose does the noise made by a firearm serve ?
It is beyond any question harmful. It is well beyond the safe noise level for humans.
Beyond the harmful range (some distance away from the gun) it disturbs other people. Shooting ranges deal all the time with noise complaints. My own local club ASKS the members to refrain from shooting before 1000 to be "good neighbors" to the people living near the range. FWIW: I go much earlier than that and shoot with a suppressor and nobody even knows I am there.

We regulate how much noise a car can make by requiring mufflers on the car.
People often complain about motorcycles with loud pipes on them. Many cities regulate air traffic certain times of day because of the noise around airports. I used to live in a city with an air force base and the air force was not allowed to do full powered take-offs because of the noise. OSHA or whomever regulates noise in industrial settings and requires the use of hearing protection.
Yet when it comes to guns many people demand that they produce unsafe levels of noise...........I just can't figure out why ?????

Again, what good purpose does it serve ????
And if you can't think of any good purpose it serves (I certainly can't) and we have the technology to greatly diminish that noise: why wouldn't we do it ????

Here is another thing that I heard brought up by someone else that I thought was interesting. What if the first gun ever invented was designed with what we today call a suppressor ? What if every gun ever made from that point on, copied that design ? Nobody would think anything about it. But because that didn't happen, many people consider making a lot of noise to be a good thing (I guess) ?????

[Double Naught Spy]

What are your thoughts about ditching all the laws about buying a silencer so as Hunters one doesn't blow out their ear drums??

I think a lot of hunters are idiots for not wearing hearing protection. Even so, silencers should be allowed so as to help protect their ears.

The second question is do you want every Tom Dick and Harry to be able to have a silencer on their Pistols or Revolvers.???

You mean like every Tom Dick and Harry can have a gun???? This sort of query reminds me of folks who worry about people owning body armor. Silencers and body armor are not weapons.

And they do not work on revolvers.

Sure suppressors work on revolvers. The laws of physics don't change just because a firearm is a revolver. You may need some slightly different technology from your standard issue revolver, but suppressed revolvers have been made in the past.

Mosin Nagant made a revolver specifically designed that would take a normal suppressor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n97Yrb-OuVY

Also..
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...d-or-can-they/

[Don Fischer]

I think you either like them or you don't or, like me, don't really have an opinion either way. Only problem I'd have with them is in my opinion they're terminal ugly! I like classic looking firearm's. Shoot the bludge in the end of shotgun barrels drives me nut's, I'll never have a shot gun with screw in choke's either! Odly, when I was young, I got a brand new Mossberg 500 from the local hardware store, Western Auto. Had a c-lect choke on it. back then it seemed cool. But I set the thing on modified and don't recall I ever changed it after that. But it was still cool!

[std7mag]

I don't own a "silencer", and as things stand now i never will.
PA allows them for hunting.

Instead of silencer, they should be called sound dampening devices.
Any way you look at it a super sonic bullet makes noise.

I think the stigmatism is in the name.

I'm ok with Tom and Harry having them. Dick, welllll..... Lol

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

"...one doesn't blow out their ear drums..." The idea of needing a suppressor when hunting is a fad brought on by stupid laws changing. It has nothing do to with hearing protection. That's just an excuse.

Using a silencer while hunting -- especially if you're using a higher-powered rifle -- will drastically reduce the hearing damage caused from firing your rifle without hearing protection. Sure, I'll bet some people use that as an excuse to use a silencer when hunting, but I'm sure many hunters are actually concerned about hearing loss. Dismissing all hunters who use silencers is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by T. O'Heir

"...suppressor might blow..." Nope.

Actually, yep. Zukiphile's full quote was, "a suppressor might blow all kinds of crud back into the action". And that's exactly correct; almost every silencer ever made will cause extra gas blowback, and if the gun is an autoloader that means extra gas blows back into the action.

[Husqvarna]

The idea of needing a suppressor when hunting is a fad brought on by stupid laws changing

It is easy to protect your own hearing, when just shooting at the range I use both a suppresor and hearing protection because why not?

but it is very hard to put hearing protection on your dog

loads of other benefits to reduces recoil (which improves your accuracy), reduces muzzleflashes (especially good for hunting over a feeder at night)

[Hanshi]

At the range yesterday, while shooting my flintlock, I got to talking with a man who was shooting a silenced .308. There was very little noise. One thing led to another and we ended up shooting each other's rifles. The silencer made the .308 virtually impossible to hear with hearing protection on. I'd guess it to be on the order of a .22LR..."maybe". The recoil was rather piddling as well. My .308 Sav. M99 gives a good kick and blast; his .308 was a kitten. A Godsend in the woods, I'm convinced.

[smee78]

I'm all for suppressor use, you would be amazed how much easier it is to teach someone how to shoot if they are not busy waiting/afraid of the loud boom. I love teaching people with my Marlin bolt gun and a can, nice and quiet and easy to instruct.

Over the pond it is considered rude not to run your gun with a suppressor on it.

I agree with what has already been said about the many reasons to run one, from hunting to target practice to self-defense in your home all verry good reasons to use one. What good is the extra noise? As far as criminals getting them that can already happen.

I personally perfer to shoot with a can on, yes it adds a little weight and length but I think the pros out weight the negative in this case.

[Ricklin]

I do agree that Hollywood is not our friend in the battle.

Perhaps a PSA, if not that a grassroots effort to educate the general public (ya I know) about suppressors esp. their noise signature.

I would say the public in general does not know that Hollywood silent does not exist. I'm sure those same folks fantasize about gangs shooting up the streets and not making a sound.

[Don Fischer]

I can imagine that down the road we will not recognize a sporting rifle. Likely even the black rifle will be a think of the past and taser's like we saw on program's like Star Trek will be the thing! I think I'm glad I won't be around to see it! :-)

[444]

This is a serious question:

"I would say the public in general does not know that Hollywood silent does not exist. I'm sure those same folks fantasize about gangs shooting up the streets and not making a sound."

What if they did ?
Again, seriously.........
Gangs shooting up the streets making noise, gangs shooting up the streets not making as much noise.
What changes beyond the sound ? How is this more dangerous, more of a threat to the public............................ What is the difference and why does it matter ?

To me, that statement implies that the noise part of the whole thing is somehow good, or it somehow makes it better...........it's not as bad if it's noisey.

This is just another aspect of the question I posted awhile back that nobody answered: What is the positive effect of the noise ? If gangs were shooting up the streets making noise, why is this better than gangs shooting up the streets not making as much noise ?

If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it still make noise ?
If someone gets shot and the gun doesn't make a loud noise, are they not still shot ?
How does the sound change anything about it ?

I am beating a dead horse here, but in all the arguments for or against firearm suppressors, I get a strong impression that it is assumed to be a given that firearms noise is somehow a good thing and by allowing suppressors, we are taking away this good thing. Everybody is making a major concession by taking away the noise. And I beg people to explain to me any instance where it is a good thing. The only thing I can come up with is, if you are lost in the woods and you fire three shots in the air to signal that you need help, less people would hear it. Beyond that, I am at a loss to come up with anything else.

[444]

I guess what I am trying to get across here is that normally when you have a discussion or a debate on a subject there are two sides: for and against. Each side makes their case.

But on this issue, it seems to be totally one sided:

I have heard the gun owners side of it. I have heard all kinds of different opinions on why suppressors should be deregulated.

But I don't ever recall anyone actually giving me a reason why we SHOULD regulate suppressors. What does it accomplish ? And like I have been saying, it seems to me like it is accepted as a given that there is something good about firearms noise and that is all the reason we need to regulate them. But what about it is good ?

Back to the original post in this thread: should hunters be allowed to use suppressors ? This question implies that there is some reason why we shouldn't allow it. What is that reason ? Why is making more noise a good thing and what good does it do for anybody ?
You shoot a deer and make a loud noise. You shoot a deer and you don't make a loud noise. Why is one better than another ? If you shoot the same deer with a bow or a crossbow which is quieter than a suppressed rifle, is that worse since you arn't making as much noise ?

[muzzleblast...]

I am in the market for a suppressor. But, my collecting days have reached the zero sum stage. An addition can be made only in response to a vacancy. It is taking a while to figure out which S&W N-frame goes to make room for an Osprey.

[Pond, James Pond]

I am beating a dead horse here, but in all the arguments for or against firearm suppressors, I get a strong impression that it is assumed to be a given that firearms noise is somehow a good thing and by allowing suppressors, we are taking away this good thing.

In the public's mind: if you say suppressor, you get a blank stare.

If you say silencer, you get a raincoat-wearing; steely-eyed; heartless assassin about to kill someone callously in the middle of a dark alley or in the middle of a busy street and no one will be none the wiser.

Ergo people associate silencers with crime, illicit activity worthy of being hidden and the underworld.

They don't think more relaxing shooting, hearing protection and a more peaceful environment in hunting season.

So, yes, in the very real battle for public opinion where knowledge is thin on the ground and opinion is thick like snow in winter what the noise of a suppressed weapon being fired sounds like is an important factor.

This question implies that there is some reason why we shouldn't allow it.

It's not a question. It is a state. They are not allowed them.

[fredvon4]

I can think of ONE and ONLY ONE reason I do not appreciate the value of a suppressor

Local deer hunting in my rural county.

We live across a county road from a large acre ranch.
In my county is is normal to lease deer hunts to the rich city folks (mostly brain dead IMO)

We have lived here 23 years and to date have 3 bullet spall marks on the front Brick work.

Each hunting season, wife and I do NOT spend any time on the front patio...
We are usually reminded to go inside or to the back yard by the first morning shot

And Yes Virginia...when we first moved here -and had the first bullet strike---

I did call the Sheriff and he got the game warden on the issue...impossible to determine what hunter, of many, shot the across road bullet

I am retired army, range safety officer too many times, and as a large extended family we are all avid 2A and good safe ethical hunters, sportsmen, and target shooters

I advocate zero GUN LAWS

BUT!!! I do desire ALL of the population to be much better educated and trained
...everybody, and on everything..

BTW cuz I have done it...a sub sonic 22Cal and a easy to make suppressor can be made to be so quiet as you ONLY hear the trigger action and very cool Phzzzzt Holly wood sound

BUT in general, even suppressed (silenced; sic) with normal ammo....there is a lot of noise ......and Holly Wood has no real world clue....but hey! they invented the endless magazine Mac 10...grin