Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton WRONG on silencers...

[johnelmore]

Has anyone ever asked you "Where can I get a good can?" The fact is there are no good silencers or good "cans". The silencers seen on TV shows and movies simply dont exist. At best they keep the sound down to the level of a jackhammer or a jet taking off. Hearing protection still suggested when using a so called "silencer". In fact, Im not quite certain of the utility of a silencer. It might not even be good advice to tell people you dont need hearing protection.

Even if it was easy to buy a silencer I wouldnt get one. Silencers put weight on the barrel throwing the shot low and require lots of practice to get right.

Im very happy the Washington Post fact checked Tim Kaine and Hillary Clinton.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ed-a-silencer/

Here is another high quality article from Politifact. A combat veteran states a silencer would not have made a difference.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...d-las-vegas-s/

[FITASC]

Funny how they were used extensively, and sold over the counter in gun-restricted countries like England, New Zealand, among others. I do prefer their term for them - "Moderator", because that is exactly what they do, they moderate the level of noise generated by firing a gun.

[raimius]

Essentially, they are a better form of hearing protection, since they muffle the blast at the source. You get less peak intensity (usually equivalent to wearing top quality ear muffs). Now, there are plenty of firearms that are still in the 130dB range with a suppressor, and I prefer to still wear at least one form of hearing protection. Suppressors simply add on to whatever you wear by a 20-30dB reduction (which is better than wearing double hearing protection).

Quality suppressors will not significantly throw off the point of impact on a firearm. You should not have to adjust your zero that much.

[JoeSixpack]

Well I have seen 9mm with 147gr+ and 22lr's suppressed to the sound of the action, you have to be subsonic though, otherwise you still have the "crack" to deal with.

I would guess 45acp probably suppresses pretty well too.

But you're right it's not like in the movies.
This is where a lot of the guncontrol inc get their education from because they don't have much actual experience.

[Mobuck]

"Even if it was easy to buy a silencer I wouldnt get one. Silencers put weight on the barrel throwing the shot low and require lots of practice to get right."

This blanket statement is incorrect. The POI change isn't always low. In some cases, the POI change is fairly insignificant. One of my 10-22's will hold close to same POI w/ or w/o suppressor and one AR is within 1" w or w/o "can". Changing ammo type/brand often causes more variance. No additional "practice" is required although I find shooting more fun w/o the need for ear protection. I have "dedicated" suppressor hosts and leave the devices mounted year round so the POI change is a non-issue.
I do agree that 99% of the population have no real experience with suppressors and base their comments on TV/movies.

[smee78]

As an owner myself I enjoy shooting more due to the reduced noise. They make teaching new shooters even easier due to them not flinching with every shot and instructions can be said rather than yelled. I wish the press would just print the facts and not made up agendas. They should be held financectully responsible for the lies they print due to potional loss of sales due to mislead customers and false advertising.

[JWT]

Put me in the camp that wouldn’t get one even if legal and available. I just do not care for the way they modify the streamlined look of a gun. Why is there such a clamor for them all of a sudden? Seems somewhat the desire for a forbidden fruit.

[JoeSixpack]

JWT they're legal, just regulated.. If I didn't have to deal with paperwork and 200 dollars tax I'd have several of them, even with supersonic ammo they still reduce the noise a bit..

They should be viewed as a safety device imo.
But the killer always uses one in the movies so there ya go.

[JWT]

My mistake Joe, you’re right about being legal. I struggle with considering them a safety device but everyone has different parameters and ideas. It is laughable listening to the politicians blather about the devices.

[JoeSixpack]

Well I see them as safety devices because even with supersonic ammo they do reduce the noise some and they get a lot more quiet with subsonic ammo.

Even a 9mm handgun at a outdoor range is pretty loud.

I made the mistake once way back in the day when I carried bag upon bags and guns to the range every trip (I travel light these days) I didn't feel like putting on hearing protection so I went down to the line unloading bare ear'ed.

The hell with that, It's a mistake you only make once.. First thing I do when I get to the range, at the very least plugs go in.

Anything that reduces noise should be considered a safety device imo for that reason.
at least that's my logic.

[johnelmore]

There are two schools of thought...

1. Noise pollution...If you live near a hunting area Im sure you dont enjoy the sound of big bore rifles all the time.

2. Hearing protection...Needs no explanation. Big bore rifles=big bang

[johnelmore]

Here is another good article on silencers with a Youtube video of what a pistol and shotgun sound like with and without. Not quite the James Bond experience.

The old message board question of where are the good cans? They only exist in movies.

http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/03/he...y-sounds-like/

[TXAZ]

“Suppressed Barrett M107A1” .50 cal.
That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. And it’s the last thing you’d ever hear if you didn’t have good muffs on.
It’s WAY louder than the .308 Remington 700.

[CalmerThanYou]

If they would get on with the Hearing protection Act, gun Manuf. would design more integrally suppressed firearms which would really advance things.

[redlightrich]

If I lived in a free state, I would probably buy one to use on a 22 caliber rifle.

The truth is, a suppressor is helpful to a real firearms enthusiast.

I would consider a suppressor a hindrance to a criminal. They don't eliminate the report, and they considerably change the size of the arm, to the point where it is less concealable. This is especially true with a handgun.

Again, the negative view is bought on by the uneducated, and of course the liberal movie makers and press.

Perhaps the best place to start would be for movie makers to be forced to obtain a real firearms permit, and the same with the actors, along with a firearms safety course before handling and filming any firearm or facsimile. This would force them to be educated, and more responsible.

Until suppressors are available easily, I am forced to wear my headphones, and at times headphones and earplugs.

[OzeanJaeger]

Some pistols, especially very light ones, benefit greatly from a can. I have a Ruger 22/45 Lite that shoots great with the suppressor, and terrible without it. It NEEDS the weight and added length. I suspect it was specifically designed to be run with a can.

Suppressors reduce felt recoil almost as much as a brake. There is a reason at tournaments half the rifles are suppressed. It’s also more neighborly than blowing out the shooter next to you on the line.

In short...they’re great. It should be an over the counter item. Good luck on changing the $200 stamp though. You’ll have to pry that $200 from their cold dead hands.

[Buzzcook]

Gotta say that at 300yds, ala the Las Vegas shooter, even without a suppressor it is difficult to spot a shooter.
With a suppressor and a loud TV it would have been much more difficult.

[44 AMP]

Perhaps the best place to start would be for movie makers to be forced to obtain a real firearms permit, and the same with the actors, along with a firearms safety course before handling and filming any firearm or facsimile. This would force them to be educated, and more responsible.

You'd think that would be a good idea, but it's not. I'm pretty sure it would be hugely unpopular, not to mention unconstitutional.

ANY proposal requiring FICTION to accurately depict reality is DOA.

It's a First Amendment thing. Freedom of the Press (which includes all the other forms of mass media).

Under our Constitution, you simply cannot make a law requiring storytellers to accurately depict reality in a work of fiction. And make no mistake, even "historically accurate" movies always contain at least some fiction. The disclaimer for this is built in, when they say the movie is "based on" or "inspired by" some actual event, it contains at least some fiction, and may be nearly all fiction, just using actual historical names, or settings.