What's Stopping You From Buying a Silencer?

[spacecoast]

but I work at a large suppressor dealer

Interesting. You might have mentioned that a bit earlier. Is it part of your job to do market research on TFL?

[Theohazard]

Nope. I just was curious.

[JohnKSa]

If I had my own property to shoot on, I would almost certainly own a suppressor. I do all my shooting at gun ranges--nearly always with other shooters present. Silencing my own gun would be kind of pointless in terms of trying to reduce the noise level.

The additional issues that come to mind are cost of the suppressor itself, the cost of the tax and the associated hassle of the paperwork approval process, the cost/hassle of either acquiring some means of preventing my spouse from accessing it or setting up a trust to allow us both to legally access it, the additional exposure to a new set of laws that need to be learned and followed, functioning/reliability issues associated with the use of silencers on locked breech pistols with floating barrels.

If it weren't for the additional issues, I'd probably get a supressor just for the "gee whiz" aspect of ownership even though it wouldn't make a lot of sense to use one at the range given my situation.

[Wyosmith]

Hummmmm
Let's look at this closely.

"I can tell you that due to the huge amount of extra paperwork the mark-up is rather high across the board, from manufacturer, to the distributer, to the dealer; we all have to charge higher margins to actually make up for all the extra man-hours spent on dealing with BATFE regulations."


Years ago I did gopher work for Huston Oil and Mineral Corp. We purchased high explosives 2 times a month for mining in open pit and strip mines. Dealing with the ATF was something we did about 3 times a week and the paper work was constant, but we could go through it in about 1 hour on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays. If you have a system down pat it's not hard to do and it's not THAT time consuming.

Now....are you really going to tell us that you have to charges HUNDREDS of dollars PER SUPRESSOR to fill out a few pages and mail them in?

You do say "the mark up was high across the board". I agree. TOO HIGH! BY FAR!

It’s nothing more than greed and there are apparently enough buyers to support that greed, but I stand by my first post.

If the suppressor manufacturers can make enough money to feed that greed by ripping off a few people, and if those people are willing to be ripped off, then more power to them. I don't care that much myself, and I don't have a need for one if it costs me much more than a few good sets of ear muffs.

But just knowing something about marketing and assuming greed is a factor, I for one would rather make $150 dollars 40 million times than 1000 dollars 3000times. I think it would be a better way to run such a business.

If I am wrong, it's ok with me. I hope I am wrong.

But if I am wrong, why are these companies’ not growing and selling cans at the same rate as other companies can sell barrels, or muzzle breaks for that matter?

I say it's because the prices are FAR too high, and as I said in my first post, there is no reason other than greed to explain it.

Cans are not that precise. Barrels are. Cans are not much more precise than muzzle breaks.

I have shot with suppressors several times in my life. I have used a Maxim, a few Sionicks suppressors, a Gem-Tech, a British Reflex and one that a friend in Nevada made himself.
Some were quieter than others, but none were “head and shoulders” better than the others. Certainly not enough to make me believe that there was all that much money spent on getting them quieter. If there was they didn't spend that money very wisely.

If a company were to have spent $2,000,000 on R and D (VERY UNLIKELY) and sold 20,000 cans, that still only come out to $100 a can.

But if I made a guess I’d bet that average company that makes cans has probably spent about $10,000 on R and D and maybe not even that much.

I don’t think there is any way to get around this argument.

Facts are facts. They are priced to rip off the shooters. I would hope I am wrong and I am humble enough to admit it if someone can show me some FACTS that might prove it. Until then, I stand by my assertion that they are priced about 7-10 times too high.

[Theohazard]

Wyosmith, you want me to show you facts, yet you haven't shown any yourself. I really don't feel like arguing, but I can tell you you're flat-out wrong.

Due to the registration process, the wait, and the $200 transfer tax, there is virtually no market for used suppressors. When customers buy a suppressor they want the best one possible made from the best materials possible. And they expect lifetime customer service from the suppressor's manufacturer because they're going to have that suppressor for life.

Silencerco just spent a huge amount of time and money developing the most innovative 5.56 silencer on the market. It's made out of an even stronger and more advanced materiel than inconel they call "Hoplon", it's as precisely machined as any high-end firearm, they developed a new and better mounting system, and the suppressor with the mount costs less than $1000. Yet they'll never sell anywhere near as many of them as they would if it was a fiream, and they have to do a lot more paperwork and jump through a lot more federal hoops.

As someone who sells suppressors, deals with distributors and manufacturers, and is involved in the industry as an enthusiast, I can tell you you're wrong on this.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Wyosmith

You do say "the mark up was high across the board". I agree. TOO HIGH! BY FAR!

It’s nothing more than greed and there are apparently enough buyers to support that greed, but I stand by my first post.

We mark up suppressors more than we mark up guns, and we still don't make as much on suppressors. Many shops don't carry or stop carrying suppressors because there's just not as much money in them due to the extra overhead. I even have a friend who just started his own shop and decided not to carry suppressors for that very reason.

Originally Posted by Wyosmith

Cans are not that precise. Barrels are. Cans are not much more precise than muzzle breaks.

Modern cans are very precise and very well-made. Just screw on a Saker's MAAD mount, or take apart an SWR Spectre or Octane, or a Silencerco Sparrow. Or better yet, shoot them next to any of the older, outdated suppressors like the ones from Gemtech. And the materiels the centerfire cans are using (inconel and now hoplon) are very expensive and very hard to work with.

Originally Posted by Wyosmith

I don’t think there is any way to get around this argument.

Your argument is based on made-up numbers and very little experience with suppressors. And none with the newer, cutting-edge ones.

It's not very often I see someone present an argument with such certainly that's based on so little personal experience.

[Wyosmith]

OK,
Points taken.
Maybe I am wrong. (I still doubt it, but I don't care because as I said, I don't value a suppressor enough to even consider buying one. If they cost $250 I might change my mind, but if pigs had wings they might fly. I don't have a dog in this fight.)

But the numbers still say that they are not near as popular as you'd like them to be.
That means they cost too much!

In real estate, if a house is on the market for 5-10 years and doesn't sell there is only ONE explanation.
No one wants it at the asking price. It costs too much.

If you are selling enough suppressors at the current asking price then this thread is useless and unnecessary.
If not, they cost too much.

[Theohazard]

Yeah, silencers are growing quickly in popularity and I like that. Not really from a business perspective, but from an enthusiast's perspective; if they become more popular then maybe there will be more political pressure to make them easier to get (even though Obama made an Executive Action recently to ask the BATFE to make them harder to get).

But there are definitely some companies that have their silencers overpriced. Surefire makes the best rifle cans from a military perspective; they're very expensive and many say they're overpriced, but people want them because the military uses them a lot. AAC's are noticeably cheaper and quieter, but have a less-solid mounting system, are less durable, and have more gas blowback and more point-of-impact shift. Gemtech hasn't come out with anything new in years, but is living off name-recognition alone. And then you have Silencerco, who came on the scene several years ago, bought out SWR, and is making new and revolutionary designs at lower prices than any of these manufacturers.

Then there are many other companies making good products at lower prices, like Liberty, YHM, AWC, Tactical Solutions, etc., and there are countless smaller shops around the country making their own silencers, but rarely do you see even the cheapest ones priced that much lower than the big guys' prices (it rarely gets as low as half) and with those lower prices you usually get designs that are heavier, harder to clean, less durable, and louder.

Basically what I'm saying is that even the smaller companies that are trying to compete with the big guys can rarely get their prices down to even half of what the big guys charge, and they can't make stuff that's as good as the stuff the big guys are putting out. That sure doesn't sound like a market that has artificially high prices that are 7-10 times too high.

[Theohazard]

Another thing that drives this market is customer service. Most suppressor owners I know are worried less about cost and more about having the latest and best suppressor on the market. After all, when you're buying a product that already costs a lot, has a $200 transfer tax, is hard to get and takes 9 months to get it, and is virtually impossible to sell or transfer to someone else, they want to know that the company will stand by their product.

Imagine a company comes out with a good handgun, and then another company comes out with a better one, so the first company redesigns their handgun and offers all customers a free upgrade to their latest version. That happens all the time with silencers. AAC came out with the Prodigy, a simple monocore baffle .22 can. Then other companies beat it in terms of loudness. So AAC made a minor tweak and upgraded to a new quieter 2nd generation baffle design for the Prodigy and offered a free upgrade if you sent your 1st gen Prodigy in to them (it's against federal law for them to send out extra baffles). Then other companies beat the Prodigy in terms of ease of disassembly when dirty, so AAC completely redesigned the baffles and again offered a free upgrade. Still, many years after AAC introduced the Prodigy, if you have a 1st or 2nd gen Prodigy, AAC will upgrade it to the new 3rd gen design for free.

And many other companies do this to; a customer bought an SWR Octane 9, and when it was sitting in one of our safes while he was waiting the many-month wait to get it, SWR completely re-designed the Octane's baffles. So we were able to send it back to SWR for him, where they upgraded to the new baffle design for free. So when he was finally able to take his can home he had the newest, best baffle design. They've made a few minor changes to the Octane since then, but it's not really worth mailing it back for those changes - I might mail my Octane 9 back for a free upgrade to make the first baffle that surrounds the piston easier to take out when dirty, but I haven't really had a problem with it yet so I haven't bothered.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Wyosmith

If you are selling enough suppressors at the current asking price then this thread is useless and unnecessary.

We're selling tons of suppressors. We're running out of space to store them while we wait for the 9+ months it's taking for customers' Form 4 approval.

I made this thread because I see a lot of people on here aren't interested in suppressors; it had nothing to do with my job. The NFA forum here is one of the least-active forums on TFL, and when the subject of suppressors comes up in the other forums those posts are largely ignored.

Despite the rapid growth of suppressor popularity in this country, they're still mostly a fringe item in the firearm community. I made this thread because I was curious as to peoples' individual reasons why they're not into suppressors like I am.

[JimmyR]

While I don't agree with a lot of Wyosmith's logic and rationale, I think one of his major points about supressors rings true to my ears

Originally Posted by Wyosmith

The PRICE is the #1 reason there are not more sales.
If Fords cost what Rolls Royce’s cost their sales would be down too.

If they would charge what they are worth instead of what .5% of the market can justify and bear,

Supressors attract a small market because of these two reasons, born out by commenters above, and fit largely into one of these two groups (if not both):

1) They simply cannot afford the price of the supressor. As you said, a quality supressor is a $1000 investment, and while there are some people dropping $1000 on a firearm, many of us don't. I personally don't own a firearm that I paid more than $500 on, and I know others in the same boat.

2) They cannot justify the expense. This is the camp I personally find myself in. I have yet to understand why shooting a supressed weapon is worth the $1000 and 9 month investment over shooting with ear muffs. I see people write about it, but I guess I just don't get the hype.

While I don't know the numbers, I would not be surprised if Wyosmith's referring to tsupressor owners as the .5% might be accurate.

[jeepstrapped]

1. Cost
2. Hassle with registration, tax stamp, CLEO sig, etc... .

I have looked into buying one and it is more hassle than buying a house. I don't have that kind of patience.

If they were not an NFA item I would likely get one.

[zxcvbob]

Despite the rapid growth of suppressor popularity in this country, they're still mostly a fringe item in the firearm community. I made this thread because I was curious as to peoples' individual reasons why they're not into suppressors like I am.

Because they are illegal? With great difficulty and much paperwork, I'm pretty sure I could buy a machine gun here. But the idiots at the state legislature explicitly ban a piece of safety equipment! (silencers) I suspect they are banned because they do have a useful everyday purpose and are within the reach of ordinary gun owners. We can't have that

[trigger643]

During a business trip to Finland a few years ago I was impressed to see the large numbers of suppressors in use at a club. My host reported that suppressors were unregulated and posited the statement, "isn't it more polite, healthier and more pleasant to operate a car with a muffler? How is a firearm any different?"

Ya, that makes sense.

From a Finnish advertisement for mufflers...

http://guns.connect.fi/rs/DAD.jpg

[Skans]

"isn't it more polite, healthier and more pleasant to operate a car with a muffler?

.....or, while in Daytona, the motto is "loud pipes save lives".

[Brotherbadger]

My only reason is cost. Right now, i can't justify spending an extra $800 for a silencer, let alone the $1600 it would cost to get one for my AR, and one for my handgun.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Because they are illegal? With great difficulty and much paperwork, I'm pretty sure I could buy a machine gun here. But the idiots at the state legislature explicitly ban a piece of safety equipment! (silencers) I suspect they are banned because they do have a useful everyday purpose and are within the reach of ordinary gun owners. We can't have that

Actually, they're banned because the original NFA included a ban on handguns and they couldn't get the votes. Handguns were removed and replaced with silencers. No body really cared about silencers, apparently.

Now, the only thing Americans know about them comes from movies. They serve no legal purpose, they turn ear splitting gun shots into "pffft" and no one but evil assassins would use them.

[zxcvbob]

Brian, Yeah, that explains the federal restrictions on silencers, but WHY do the states decide that doesn't go far enough and have an outright ban?

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Brian, Yeah, that explains the federal restrictions on silencers, but WHY do the states decide that doesn't go far enough and have an outright ban?

Some states ban silencers for the same reason the federal government restricts them: Many people can't understand how they could be used for anything other than illegal purposes.

I can't tell you how often people come in to our store, look at our selection of silencers, and say, "Why in the world would you need one of those unless you're an assassin?"

[RedBowTies88]

Brian, Yeah, that explains the federal restrictions on silencers, but WHY do the states decide that doesn't go far enough and have an outright ban?

Because in some states, the constitution isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

In a nutshell.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by zxcvbob

Brian, Yeah, that explains the federal restrictions on silencers, but WHY do the states decide that doesn't go far enough and have an outright ban?

The last sentence of my previous post is most of the reason. Besides that, some states would ban firearms *period* so silencers isn't too shocking. They'll take what they can take.

[Jim243]

Two reasons,

1. I don't need one.

And

2. They are illegal in Illinois.

Jim

[rifle59]

I like mine. I look at it as additional hearing protection. I have already lost some hearing from shooting since I was a kid. Yes they seem expensive but my ears are worth it. The wait stinks, the tax is a ripoff and to have to go through that paperwork is a waste. The only way to get killed by a suppressor alone is to get hit with one. That being said, it is worth it to me.

[mdd]

I don't have one because I refuse to further fund the degradation of my rights by an already corrupt government through the purchase of their tax stamp. I don't mind the price of the suppressor. I wouldn't even mind the wait. But I'll be damned if I'll bribe them for permission to exercise my rights. So I just refuse to have one.

[Madcap_Magician]

Because no moneys and also because against state law.