Now the gun rights people want silencers for their weapons.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: infolurker

Not done reading. Lots of misinformation.

.22 is often VERY loud. It's the sonic boom. Supresssor will have no effect on that.

.45 ammo is typically naturally subsonic. Very loud, but no sonic boom. Supresssor very effective.

9mm supersonic typically.

50cal sniper WAY supersonic.

Supresssor are mostly short lived. The most effective are the shortest lived.

Also, easy to make.

Also, in most states, silencers are already perfectly legal with a $200 tax to the BATFE and senior LEO signoff. I've got one on a SIG 220.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: infolurker

.45 ammo is typically naturally subsonic. Very loud, but no sonic boom. Supresssor very effective.

Less effective than something like a 9mm as the 45 cal bore is larger; bigger hole, more noise gets out.

9mm supersonic typically.

Most people in the USA who shoot suppressed 9mm use 147 grain subsonic ammo.

50cal sniper WAY supersonic.

About 2800-3000 fps, slower than many other cartridges.

Supresssor are mostly short lived. The most effective are the shortest lived.

Where I live (USA) both of these claims are not true.

Also, easy to make.

They can be.

Ranb

originally posted by: babybunnies
The 2nd Amendment covers guns. It doesn't cover accessories or AMMUNITION. You have the right to OWN a gun, not the right to be able to fire it.

If someone truly wants to limit gun ownership, they would push huge taxes on Ammunition that would make it unaffordable for the average American.

It's not infringing on their right to bear arms, it's simply making it excessively expensive to go to the range on a Saturday afternoon. $20 - $30 per bullet seems about right.

You can't restrict gun ownership thanks to 2nd Amendment, but you can sure as hell make it tough to get ammunition if you were really serious about gun control.

Taxes on ammunition also wouldn't have to pass Congress, it could be done with an Executive Order, if the will were there.

Wow,just Wow!I`m sure the President could just raise the tax on gasoline to $5000.00 a gal to cut down on rush hour traffic.Are you for real?

originally posted by: babybunnies
The 2nd Amendment covers guns. It doesn't cover accessories or AMMUNITION. You have the right to OWN a gun, not the right to be able to fire it.

If someone truly wants to limit gun ownership, they would push huge taxes on Ammunition that would make it unaffordable for the average American.

It's not infringing on their right to bear arms, it's simply making it excessively expensive to go to the range on a Saturday afternoon. $20 - $30 per bullet seems about right.

You can't restrict gun ownership thanks to 2nd Amendment, but you can sure as hell make it tough to get ammunition if you were really serious about gun control.

Taxes on ammunition also wouldn't have to pass Congress, it could be done with an Executive Order, if the will were there.

Actually, this is 100% complete B.S. As recently as 2008 and 2010 in District of Columbia v.Heller and McDonald v. Chicago the SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the individual rights model of protections under 2A provides that the clause pertaining to 'Militias' means that the individuals are responsible for supplying their own arms and ammunition as this is historically been how Militias have been armed.

Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:


The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[163]

a reply to: peter vlar

Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[163]

a reply to: babybunnies

They tried and failed..www.infowars.com...
NEXT attempt?

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: babybunnies

They tried and failed..www.infowars.com...
NEXT attempt?

I've never understood attempting to ban armor piercing rounds when you can make your own. I guess they figure most people are to stupid to figure it out?

a reply to: dragonridr

Not to mention HOW many rounds of Russian STEEL CORE are floating around?

a reply to: JBA2848

It is easy to make your own silencers for any firearm. Automotive oil filters and other items as well. No need to complain about this since legal firearm owners just want legal ones to put on their guns to save their hearing.

Your complaint has no meaning since criminals who want to kill kids with guns don't need a legal silencer for their gun, they can just buy one at the auto parts store and put it on their gun with ease and not much mechanical knowledge. It will be breaking the law, but they are already planning to break the law much worse if they plan on shooting people.

Your entire complaint is totally worthless.

I think all weapons need to be suppressed or silenced. The only reason the Feds want a tax and licensing, is to give them power over people and stuff their pockets with money

Criminals don't care what the feds think, and they'll do whatever they want

a reply to: cavtrooper7

oh absolutely. I can't even remember how much Tul-Ammo I picked up at the last gun show I went to. It's a little dirtier and takes an extra 5 seconds of cleaning but the stuff is much less expensive than the vast majority of lead rounds. It's great for target practice based on price alone.

How many shootings have been stopped or shortened because of the "loudness" of the shots?

Since you're so worried about your hypothetical scenario where a shooter with a "silencer" is able to "rack up the body count," I'm sure you have some data to support your fears?

Do you know how easy it is to make an effective suppressor if someone wants one?

The fear-mongering nonsense is THICK in this thread.

a reply to: peter vlar

SAVE it ,it's ARMOR piercing now ,the RUBES will EAT it up later..

a reply to: cavtrooper7

And here I've been hoarding all of my M855 instead! I've got plenty to go around of a few varieties but the damned steel rounds are pennies on the dollar. At least for now!

a reply to: JBA2848

This is a gun being fired normally, then suppressed: www.youtube.com...

The average gun shot is around 165 Decibels, a suppressor takes it down to about 130. Both decibel levels are enough to damage the ear permanently, if it'll damage your ear and isn't infrasound then you'll hear it from quite a distance. I don't know how you feel about guns in general, but the suppressor won't make a noticeable difference and even if it did, what does it matter? Mass shooting death levels get raised by 10 per mass killing, still a really low death count because they are so rare. If you are concerned about human life, stop talking about gun laws, they don't cause too many deaths.

So what is your argument here? Knowing it doesn't make a noticeable difference in the sound area, knowing they are already legalized in many states, why the concern for it?

originally posted by: Ranb40

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: infolurker

.45 ammo is typically naturally subsonic. Very loud, but no sonic boom. Supresssor very effective.

Less effective than something like a 9mm as the 45 cal bore is larger; bigger hole, more noise gets out.

9mm supersonic typically.

Most people in the USA who shoot suppressed 9mm use 147 grain subsonic ammo.

50cal sniper WAY supersonic.

About 2800-3000 fps, slower than many other cartridges.

Supresssor are mostly short lived. The most effective are the shortest lived.

Where I live (USA) both of these claims are not true.

Also, easy to make.

They can be.

Ranb

45 suppressor will be much more effective than 9mm with standard ammo. Of course 9mm subsonic will outperform it.


As to the other, unless I am hopelessly lost in the tech, a good Supresssor uses both redirection of the gases and scrubbers that act like squeegee on the bullet as it leaves. The most effective will have more scrubbers and tighter scrubbers, but as they are designed to actually touch the projectile, they wear out fast and the sound attenuation is reduced with each shot.

Even in the USA. Again, I could be totally off though.

Perhaps they have better materials now, or have a gas redirection system that is as effective without scrubbers. I don't know. Im Not a class 3 guy.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: Ranb40

originally posted by: ISawItFirst
a reply to: infolurker

.45 ammo is typically naturally subsonic. Very loud, but no sonic boom. Supresssor very effective.

Less effective than something like a 9mm as the 45 cal bore is larger; bigger hole, more noise gets out.

9mm supersonic typically.

Most people in the USA who shoot suppressed 9mm use 147 grain subsonic ammo.

50cal sniper WAY supersonic.

About 2800-3000 fps, slower than many other cartridges.

Supresssor are mostly short lived. The most effective are the shortest lived.

Where I live (USA) both of these claims are not true.

Also, easy to make.

They can be.

Ranb

45 suppressor will be much more effective than 9mm with standard ammo. Of course 9mm subsonic will outperform it.


As to the other, unless I am hopelessly lost in the tech, a good Supresssor uses both redirection of the gases and scrubbers that act like squeegee on the bullet as it leaves. The most effective will have more scrubbers and tighter scrubbers, but as they are designed to actually touch the projectile, they wear out fast and the sound attenuation is reduced with each shot.

Even in the USA. Again, I could be totally off though.

Perhaps they have better materials now, or have a gas redirection system that is as effective without scrubbers. I don't know. Im Not a class 3 guy.

With today advancements in suppression technology wipes are no longer needed. Bolt buffers are needed though to reduce the clatter of the cycles if not using bolt action or break over. 380, 45, 38, can be totally silent with merely a whizzing sound and the impact

originally posted by: SPECULUM




With today advancements in suppression technology wipes are no longer needed. Bolt buffers are needed though to reduce the clatter of the cycles if not using bolt action or break over. 380, 45, 38, can be totally silent with merely a whizzing sound and the impact

What a wonderful world we live in.

a reply to: JBA2848

Lets give the mass killers a silencer so they can kill more before people realize what is happening. There would be no need to hide the noise by doing it at a movie theater during a gun scene. You could do it any where. Great idea idiots!!!

Well, thanks for calling us gun owners idiots, when you obviously haven't done your home work on the subject. "Silencers" don't work like in the movies, where James Bond shoots someone, the gun goes "pfftt" and the bad guy falls down in the middle of a crowd and no one notices a thing. They are suppressors they do not make the weapon go "pfftt" so quietly that you can shoot with no one hearing it. I don't know if you've actually been around a firearm, but they are Loud. Even a small .22 rifle produces decibel levels around 140. - 160 db. The much feared .223 is 155 db. The dreaded 9 mm is right at 160 db. The big bore rifles go around 175 db. Standing next to a working bulldozer is 105 db.
Suppressors reduce that by 14 to 43 db. So, you still have the noise of a bulldozer running at full throttle. Not exactly all 007 now are they?

Live tests by independent reviewers of numerous commercially available suppressors find that even low-power, unsuppressed .22 LR handguns produce gunshots over 160 decibels.[28] In testing, most of the suppressors reduced the volume to between 130 and 145 dB, with the quietest suppressors metering at 117 dB

originally posted by: JBA2848
So here it is. A website for American Silencer Association. And they want silencers for all their weapons because it will help to protect their hearing.
And the statements above that they are ready to talk about gun control with the government? Really when they now are going to push for silencers so a school shooter down the road would not have been heard as he killed little kids in the classroom next door? What a joke. Lets give the mass killers a silencer so they can kill more before people realize what is happening. There would be no need to hide the noise by doing it at a movie theater during a gun scene. You could do it any where. Great idea idiots!!!

It's a very good idea. In fact, across most of Europe, silencers are considered as tools; useful and responsible things to use, both for personal H&S but also out of respect for the surrounding community. Only the US seems to have this bizarre approach to them, probably inspired by an inability to separate fact from fiction. Not to mention that silencers are already legal in most states as far as I know, they just need an additional $200 tax stamp.

I've not read the entire thread yet, but I'm guessing plenty of people have already pointed out the silencers don't make a firearm "quiet", they just knock the sound down a bit to keep it within more tolerable levels. What you see in films is completely unrealistic for the majority of centerfire firearms.