• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Silencer for your carry gun

SlackwareRobert

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2008
Messages
1,338
Location
Alabama, ,
I love the howto video disclaimers. This silencer was made OUTSIDE the US.....

But look at the other advantages, good heat sink to help cool your barrel allowing more rounds at faster intervals in the firefight before you cook your pistol.

Now what is needed is a nice tuned pipe to both quite and enhance FPS at the muzzle so the double tap hits BG first to really mess with the CSI team investigation.
 

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,362
Location
Grennsboro NC
You can get m1895 nagant revolvers at a decent price still. That way you don't have to worry about picking up casings at the range.

Yeah, but contrary to Hollywood and TV, suppressors are essentially ineffective when used on a revolver...
 

shad0wfax

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,069
Location
Spokane, Washington, USA
There are a number of reasons I will not carry a firearm with a suppressor attached for self-defense purposes:

  • In my state (Washington) it is unlawful to discharge a firearm with a suppressor on it.

    RCW 9.41.250
    Dangerous weapons — Penalty — Exemption for law enforcement officers.

    (1) Every person who [SNIP] (c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
  • Thus having a suppressor attached to a firearm and being forced to use that firearm to defend oneself would criminalize one even if the shooting was deemed to be in self-defense.
  • This makes it hard to convince a jury that the shooting was in self defense. One would be facing the argument that the person who had the suppressor had criminal intent, at least in my state. This would be easy for a prosecutor to argue by making a few logical statements: The firearm was carried for self-defense, thus the carrier of the firearm intended to use it for self-defense if a situation where their life was in danger arose. Thus, by attaching a suppressor to it, the carrier of the firearm carried it suppressed with the intent to use it if the need to defend himself arose. Thus, the carrier intended to fire it suppressed. By carrying a firearm suppressed in my state, you give the prosecutor a slam-dunk case of at the very least a gross misdemeanor. To make matters worse, the prosecution could then go on to imply to the jury that the defensive shooter went out looking for a fight, as they had already demonstrated the intent to suppress their weapon.
  • Then we have the social stigma in the USA that a suppressor is an assassin's tool and nothing more. That's going to be an easy sell to a jury by an aggressive prosecutor. In my opinion, the odds of a defensive-shooting argument succeeding in anything but a clear-cut case are reduced significantly if a suppressor is involved.
  • We haven't even explored the "tactical" reasons it's a bad idea:
    • The firearm is longer.
    • The firearm is heavier.
    • The firearm is slower to draw because of its length alone.
    • The firearm is slower to acquire a target.
    • Holsters for pistols with suppressors attached are typically "universal" scabbard styles and are not as secure or handy as regular carry holsters, making drawing the pisol even slower than just due to length as mentioned above.
  • And the two biggest reasons: I would not want a federal agency involved in a case simply because an NFA device was used in connection with a shooting. I would not want a device I waited several months to get and paid a "tax-n-stamp" fee to obtain sitting in some PD evidence locker for weeks or months on end while I was in the courtrooms as a defendant. It's bad enough to have a pistol sitting in an evidence limbo. Can you imagine a NFA device sitting in evidence limbo? No thanks.

The long story short is that we need to change the American perception of suppressors before we can even think about using them "commonly" like the Finns do. There is so much misinformation out there. Even in this thread, I've read some things that make me just shake my head about suppressors. No, they're not hard to get. They're time consuming to get. No, it's not against the law for a CLEO to refuse to sign off on the Form 4; The CLEO signature is not a "shall-sign" it's a "may-sign." Yes, the CLEOs in some jurisdictions are total jerks about signing the forms and you can legally bypass the CLEO signature, the fingerprints, and the photograph by creating a Trust instead. Yes, if the City PD Chief refuses to sign you can ask the County Sheriff to sign, or the head of the State Police, or a judge in your jurisdiction that can serve a bench warrant, or even the Attorney General of your state. Or you can bypass them all with a Trust or a Corporation. No, bypassing the CLEOs doesn't make your paperwork take any longer. No, the BATFE can't come search your house without notice to look for your NFA device. No, you don't have to notify them every time you move your suppressor around. Yes, the BATFE can demand to see your paperwork for the suppressor and you're required by law to show it to them. Yes, it may be legal federally but illegal at the state level. Yes, your state may not have preemption for suppressors so they may be banned by a municipality or county. So on, and so forth...
 

Hef

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2007
Messages
524
Location
Bluffton, South Carolina, USA
i'd sure like to know the poop on these silencers. permit? from the fed? only good for one gun? how long is it valid? hard to get?


It's the same process (NFA transfer) as any other Title 2 firearm. Find it at a Class 3 dealer, pay for it, fill out the Form 4 in duplicate, get a CLEO signature, prints, and passport photos (or buy it as an LLC, S-Corp, or trust without them), and send the application to the BATFEces NFA Division in Martinsburg, WV with a $200 check.

Then you wait anywhere from a few weeks (LLC/Corp/trust) to a few months (individual app) for your stamped application to show up in the mail. From there, you head to the Class 3 dealer and complete the transaction.


This is the federal process only. My state (SC) has no added restrictions. Yours may.
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
I think suppressors are great. You are guaranteed hearing loss with every shot you take without hearing protection on. Reducing the amount of hearing loss is a good thing. If there were no federal regulations I bet that integral suppressors would be much more popular. Sure being dead is a lot worse than having slight hearing loss, but I'd rather be both alive and have no hearing loss for myself, for my dog, and for others in the place.

The main problem with silencers is that they are so long that they are difficult to carry comfortably, would make a draw much more difficult, and would make people irrationally upset. They may be more easily suited to a home defense weapon than a carry gun.

The only suppressed weapon I could imagine open carrying comfortably would be something like a Ruger Mark II with an integrally suppressed barrel like the Gemtech Oasis. Even here the barrel is pretty long, although a lot shorter than most other guns with a silencer.

images


Suppressing a larger caliber would require a much bigger suppressor for the same amount of effectiveness at protecting hearing making the gun much more cumbersome to carry.

For now, I'll just carry my loud S&W revolver.
 
Last edited:

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,711
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
If you are involved in a self-defense shooting, your own hearing loss is only temporary. The loudest thing you will hear besides the discharge of your firearm (or others) is going to be your own pulse in your ears. Your own nervous system has a tendancy to "shut down" your hearing input at the moment your weapon discharges.
Talk to a medical professional for an explanation... I don't know why, it just does. Your hearing comes back in about an hour or so, depending on the proximity to the discharge and the acoustics of the area.

When you've got adrenaline pumping your brain may tune out the shot so that you don't notice the boom but it won't reduce the damage it will do to the small sensitive hairs on the ear. While some temporary hearing loss and ringing will disappear on its own, each shot without protection also likely creates a small degree of permanent hearing loss. It won't make you deaf instantly, but hearing loss is cumulative and irreversible. In addition to making it harder to hear certain sounds, exposing yourself to loud noises also creates a risk that symptoms like tinnitus may develop which cause the sufferer to hear noises (like high pitched whirring, for instance,) forever.

Chances are you won't go deaf after just a few rounds. I myself have fired quite a few rounds with hearing protection due to my lack of wisdom in the past, without dire consequence. I hope to avoid firing any rounds without hearing protection in the future if I can. Of course I won't hesitate to shoot in self defense, but if I could have a gun that didn't damage my hearing as much, with all else being equal, I'd prefer it.

If temporary hearing loss and pain was the only consequence of loud noise with no long term effects, most people probably would never use hearing protection at the firing range.
 
Top