Do silencers work? Are they worth it?

[Bongo Boy]

The suppressors I've sat next to when fired were extremely effective, one being used on a 1911 (and resulting in a report significantly less harsh than a .22LR and overall quieter by a wide margin).

It is definitely true that if a bullet produces a shock wave, it will still produce a shock wave when fired from a gun with a suppressor. But, that may not mean a thing to you depending on your 'audience'. The shooter isn't going to hear the shock wave under any circumstances, so it doesn't make any difference to that shooter that the sonic crack isn't silenced -- if the objective was simply to quiet the report for him/herself. In my experience, the crack of the shock wave isn't all that unpleasant anyway--while perfectly audible, it isn't like muzzle blast.

Seems to me you have to think about why you want to pay for the benefits the suppressor provides. If it's just for fun, I think they're a lot of fun but not for the money. And while I'd be hard pressed to imagine an Italy vacation costing much less than about ten times the cost of a suppressor and the tax stamp, it still not worth it to me just for fun.

A more reasonable excuse to buy one might be for home defense--where I imagine a happy scenario in which you're the only one to fire a weapon. In this happy path of unlikely events, you'd still be able to hear after you fired, and that would be kinda nice. Again, for a 1-in-a-million likelihood, seems like a lot of risk mitigation to me.

"Is it worth it" is really a very tough question to answer. If I have unlimited resources and like lots of toys that are fun and pretty cool--yes, of course it's worth it. If shooting a suppressed weapon reduces the radius of exposure I have to hostiles who otherwise would know my location and activity, and gives me a chance to exit with my life, yes, it's worth it.

If all I need it for is to make YouTube videos of me shooting it and I'm saving for retirement, then no.

[Skans]

Someday someone will make a silent silencer for 9mm, and when that happens, I'll consider buying one, no matter how big and bulky it might be. To date, no suppressor out there has intrigued me enough to get me to part with my $$$'s.

[Pond, James Pond]

Someday someone will make a silent silencer for 9mm, and when that happens, I'll consider buying one, no matter how big and bulky it might be.

There was that guy who made a barrel-thread-to-oil-filter-thread adapter and those sounded very quiet.

Cheap, effective, ugly.

[SIGSHR]

As others have noted, the legal requirements are considerable. And at the risk of treading on thin ice, the home made ones are just as effective and fairly easy to assemble. Remember that in movies and TV sound effects are added through post production dubbing.

[Lark]

There was that guy who made a barrel-thread-to-oil-filter-thread adapter and those sounded very quiet.

Everything sounds good on Youtube.

[Death from Afar]

I find the law in the US on suppressors simply bizarre. Here, they are not only legal, but encouraged!

To answer your question, I would rather have a suppressor on a rifle than a telescopic sight. They are that good. your ears are protected, you don't annoy folks and game is not spooked. I have several, one of which is on a HK UMC. The .45ACP is so quiet it is eerie. For randomly shooting critters in your path, its ideal.

[AK103K]

Not to change the subject.....but brilliant!

"Beware of the Man with one gun...he probably isnt into guns enough to be safe with it".

[Death from Afar]

Hey thanks man!

[dakota.potts]

I'm not an expert, so somebody can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

However, I believe most good silencer brands are hearing safe... for one shot, maybe a couple. OSHA rates safe one-time exposure to a sound at 140 dB, which good silencers are able to deliver even in large calibers.

In a situation where you're hunting and take one, maybe two shots it seems to me like the suppressor would indeed make it hearing safe.

For an extended competition shooting 100 rounds or all day plinking, I would agree that it would not be at all hearing safe. The action on some guns alone is loud enough to cause hearing damage. I've actually thumbed the bolt release on AR-15s before, held too close to my head, which produced a ringing in my ear just from the sound of the bolt slamming home.

[5RWill]

Yes they work but "silencer" is a complete misuse of the term. They're suppressors and do just that, suppress the sound of a gun shot. It is still loud as others have said there is no escaping that sonic boom from the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

Are they hearing safe? No. Are they safer than an unsuppressed rifle? Yes. Doesn't make them hearing safe though. Hearing damage which usually results in Tinnitus and does so because the tiny hairs in our ears are what allows us to hear, due to sound being a mechanical wave. If these hairs bend or break they will not grow back or reposition themselves. Hearing damage is accumulative every time you expose your ears to sounds above the safety threshold of the human ear your damaging your hearing. Is it immediate? No not really less it's an extreme situation like a handgun going off right by your ear. The real question you need to ask yourself is do you want to be able to hear in your older age?

I just got my 30CB9 in and i would describe it's sound as between a 22 mag and 22 hornet. Not quite as loud as the hornet, doesn't cause my ears to ring, but it is loud. I will shoot it without hearing protection hunting no doubt because it is sooo much more comfortable than shooting unsuppressed in the woods or hunting and no hearing protection. With earplugs it's very very pleasant. Is it worth the money? That's entirely up to you. To me it was and is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpPFMcDVrUI

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

"silencer" is a complete misuse of the term. They're suppressors

How can it be a misuse of the term when "silencer" is what the original inventor called it? Doesn't an inventor get to decide what his invention is called?

Are you going to tell SilencerCo (one of the biggest manufacturers) that they're completely misusing the term? Did Silencer Shop (the biggest online retailer and distributor) mis-name their store? Does Silencer Talk (the prominent online silencer forum) need to change their name? And what about my ATF Form 4s I have for each one of my silencers? They all say "silencer" on them.

Sure, it doesn't actually silence the firearm, but that's what Maxim called his invention, so that's what most people call it. And that was the predominant term for the better part of the 20th century until the term "sound suppressor" was made up to more accurately describe what it does. But the term "silencer" is more correct from both a historical and a legal standpoint.

I get so tired of this "it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor" garbage. The terms "silencer" and "suppressor" are used interchangeably in the industry, both refer to the same thing, and both are fine.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by dakota.potts

However, I believe most good silencer brands are hearing safe... for one shot, maybe a couple. OSHA rates safe one-time exposure to a sound at 140 dB, which good silencers are able to deliver even in large calibers.

In a situation where you're hunting and take one, maybe two shots it seems to me like the suppressor would indeed make it hearing safe.

I've spent some time trying to studying this topic, but I'm far from a hearing expert, so take my opinion for what it's worth. That said, it's my understanding that the 140 dB OSHA limit doesn't mean that any one-time noise below 140 dB can't hurt your hearing, it simply means that any one-time noise above 140 dB can cause instantly noticable hearing loss.

I suspect that an audiologist will tell you that most suppressed firearms will still permanently damage your hearing a small amount with just one shot, but that damage will usually be so small that it's not easily measurable. It probably takes multiple shots for the damage to build up to the point where it's noticable.

That said, this is a specific subject I'd like to learn more about, because all the noise exposure guidelines I've found didn't specifically refer to short, staccato noises like suppressed gunfire.

[Skans]

Blackops, why don't you tap some threads into that big oil drum sitting on the wagon in your picture and put some baffling in it - I bet you could turn that thing into a true silencer for that rifle......after you do the paperpwork, of course!

[5RWill]

Originally Posted by Skans

Blackops, why don't you tap some threads into that big oil drum sitting on the wagon in your picture and put some baffling in it - I bet you could turn that thing into a true silencer for that rifle......after you do the paperpwork, of course!

Lol! That's a friend of mine's place but you have to wonder what the reduction on that thing would be lol. I'd venture to guess 140db.

Originally Posted by theohazard

I get so tired of this "it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor" garbage. The terms "silencer" and "suppressor" are used interchangeably in the industry, both refer to the same thing, and both are fine.

They might be used interchangeably but the problem arises when an interested person like the OP mistakes them for being something their not, partly due to the name itself. Then is disappointed when they find out there is really no such thing as "silencing".

Yes companies like SilencerCo use the term and businesses like Silencer Shop use the term. And the inventor can name it whatever he wants, it doesn't change the fact that when people associate the sound of silence to the name of "silencer" for a "suppressor" it's usually accommodated by an underwhelming result of how a suppressor sounds because it did not "silence it"

It's also a term that the Libs and Anti-guns will certainly get behind to push gun control, much like the evil "assault rifle" I don't like to use it and it doesn't bother some people. But hey different strokes for different folks eh?

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

They might be used interchangeably but the problem arises when an interested person like the OP mistakes them for being something their not, partly due to the name itself. Then is disappointed when they find out there is really no such thing as "silencing".

That misconception is primarily due to the fact that Hollywood has portrayed silencers incorrectly throughout the years, and not simply due to the name itself. Our language is full of names for things that aren't literal descriptions of what they are: A "blue moon" isn't blue, a butterfly contains no butter, a hamburger isn't made with ham, a "black box" is actually orange, you drive on a parkway, you park on a driveway, a shipment goes on a vehicle, cargo goes on a ship, and football players primarily use their hands. I think most people have the capacity to understand that the name of an object isn't necessarily a literal description of what it does. After all, car mufflers are often called "silencers" in England, but I doubt many folks there think cars are completely silent.

No, the problem isn't the name, the problem is that Hollywood, politicians, and the news media are often the only sources many people have for their gun knowledge. This is why so many people think silencers sound the way they do, this is why they think assault rifles and "assault weapons" are the same thing, this is why they think machine guns are available over-the-counter to the general public, this is why they think hollow-points are only used by criminals; the list goes on and on.

Sure, I get that the term "silencer" doesn't accurately describe what it does and that's why the term "sound suppressor" was invented a few decades ago to try to help change public perception of them. If you prefer the term "suppressor", go right ahead. But when people claim that "it's not a silencer, it's a suppressor", they're simply displaying a tremendous amount of ignorance on the subject.

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

It's also a term that the Libs and Anti-guns will certainly get behind to push gun control, much like the evil "assault rifle" I don't like to use it and it doesn't bother some people. But hey different strokes for different folks eh?

I mostly use the term "silencer" because it's more historically and legally correct, and because I get so tired of people who correct others for using the term. I do the same with assault rifles; even when I use the term to refer to actual assault rifles, it's amazing how many gun people try to correct me. Here's the thing: As gun owners, we can't win the war on terminology if we don't understand the terminology ourselves.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

Lol! That's a friend of mine's place but you have to wonder what the reduction on that thing would be lol. I'd venture to guess 140db.

You don't need paperwork if it's stationary and isn't attached to the firearm. And there's no possible way you'd get 140 dBs of reduction; with silencers there are diminishing returns the larger you go. Sure, with proper baffles it would be quieter than your Thunderbeast silencer, but it would still be well over 100 dB (and probably even over 120 dB). Heck, the firing pin on your rifle is around 100 dB by itself when dry-fired.

[5RWill]

The oil can thing was a complete joke, I hope you realize that.

As i said before different strokes for different folks. Correct terminology or not i don't like using it when the anti-guns can get behind it to scare the uneducated into thinking we have something that makes a firearm completely silent and is so "dangerous" to their lives...etc. I digress you've made your point i get it and commend it. Having said that i still don't like the use of the term because of the negativity it brings. I realize that is not our fault it's hollywood, politicians, and such who demonize these things to the sheep. It's not going to change though is the issue. So i will continue to use "suppressor".

Either way it's a little off topic.

[Lark]

The oil can thing was a complete joke, I hope you realize that.

There is a range in western WA that uses a 55 gallon drum as a suppressor for the larger rifles. They were sued over noise issues and when they attempted to use noise abatement the county Prosecuting Attorney told them it was illegal to use. The club had to get an opinion from the ATF (not a silencer) and from the Attorney General (the dangerous weapons statute does not apply to a box/barrel) so they could install it again.

The club eventually lost at trial, was shut down, then reopened pending appeal, which they lost, (except for grandfathered rights to exist as a range) then got shut down again when the county passed a law requiring issuance of an operation permit (allows county to put any restrictions on use of the club) as a condition to remain open.

An appeal is pending.

[Tom Servo]

It's also a term that the Libs and Anti-guns will certainly get behind to push gun control, much like the evil "assault rifle"

They've generally left NFA items alone. The plain fact is, those items are controlled about as strictly as possible.

You don't need paperwork if it's stationary and isn't attached to the firearm.

I'm not sure where that information comes from. The NFA defines a silencer as,

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, any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.

The word "portable" is used to describe the firearm, not the silencer.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

The oil can thing was a complete joke, I hope you realize that.

I know it started off as a joke, but it's not uncommon at all for people to build stationary structures that accomplish the same thing as a silencer but without any tax stamp requirement. Also, Skans has started threads previously that discussed what silencer design would make a gun truly silent, so it's a subject we've discussed before.

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

So i will continue to use "suppressor".

That's completely fine, just don't correct people for using the term silencer.

Originally Posted by Blackops_2

Either way it's a little off topic.

You brought it up.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'm not sure where that information comes from. The NFA defines a silencer as,

The word "portable" is used to describe the firearm, not the silencer.

I honestly don't know where the legal distinction is drawn exactly, but I do know that people often build small structures like the one Lark referred to that help suppress the shot but aren't considered silencers by the ATF.

I'm curious as to how the ATF draws that distinction, though.

[5RWill]

Originally Posted by theohazard

That's completely fine, just don't correct people for using the term silencer.

Fair enough. But it's not a silencer (jk) Yeah i guess i did bring up but my post wasn't centered on correcting the OP more or less it was on answering his question.

Originally Posted by theohazard

I know it started off as a joke, but it's not uncommon at all for people to build stationary structures that accomplish the same thing as a silencer but without any tax stamp requirement. Also, Skans has started threads previously that discussed what silencer design would make a gun truly silent, so it's a subject we've discussed before.

Maybe, i don't see the practicality of a stationary suppressor though. I guess, just because will suffice.

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

They've generally left NFA items alone. The plain fact is, those items are controlled about as strictly as possible.

I for one hope they continue to leave them alone.

[Tom Servo]

I'm curious as to how the ATF draws that distinction, though.

My guess is that they've simply chosen not to do so. However, they could start harping on it at any time.

I for one hope they continue to leave them alone.

It won't make much hay for them. They want something with a wide and easily publicized impact. The eventual goal is confiscation and those photo ops where they have a bunch of guns on the table. They won't get that with a few NFA items.

[skizzums]

i think they re fantastic, but I would only spend the money on a rifle capable of sub-sonic shooting. Now if I used a gun for a living all the time, then yes, I would want one on every gun possible. but for now, I would love one on a 9mm or 300blk, hopefully early next year.

I think they are pretty darn quiet on a 9mm and pretty much silent shooting sub .22

[CodeSection]

This is a little off topic....

ATF told me today they approved my Form 4 on August 3rd. I asked them when I my FFL guy would get it and I was told my FFL guy had 10 days to get it to me.

They were not clear if they mail the approval to the FFL guy or if they notify him of the approval and he goes online to retrieve that stamp.

I'm confused as to the process at this point and readily admit I may have misunderstood. Can anyone clarify what happens now and how long does it generally take for me to receive my stamp after ATF approves it?

I appreciate the help.