Adding a silencer, kinda mysterious?

[Telekinesis]

but if you're having to shoot and possibly kill someone the potential loss of a few decibels of hearing are pretty low down the list.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm a musician and a sound engineer. If I loose enough hearing, I'm out of a job. There's already enough loss of hearing associated with these fields that I am incredibly protective of my hearing when I can be, so why wouldn't I try to limit my exposure in a SD incident if possible? I can't just write off a few decibels of hearing.

Second, the noise isn't sufficient to stun you. It's just noise.

Flash bangs are only 5-10 dB louder than a 9mm, and I doubt you'll find anyone saying that a flashbang is just noise.

glad someonelse pointed out that 9mm is QUIETER. a lot of people think that because 45 is subsonic that it is easy to suppress. as far as i know - the 45's powder charge creates a much greater blast and is more work to tame.

Whats really funny about this is that I can take a $300, 4" 9mm suppressor and be QUIETER for the first 10-15 rounds than that $850, 7.5" Osprey45. The current generation of the Osprey45 and TiRant45 were the first to be able to claim they were hearing safe while dry, and we've had dry/hearing safe 9mm cans for years. Hell, some of these newer 9mm cans are approaching suppressed .22 sound levels when wet. But people never listen to the guy with actual dB ratings, they just wanna look cool with their .45 can...

 

[neviander]

Excellent thread drift, more like thread branching.

I tend to agree with CoMoRo on the legal argument.

If the 9mm really is quieter than the .45 out of a silencer, I'd be happy to switch my preference to the 9. Would the rounds have to be sub-sonic 9s though? or does the super sonic factor have a negligible effect when the silencer is involved?

 

[Telekinesis]

Its not technically off topic as we're correcting the assumption that a .45 is the quietest weapon to suppress and you also mentioned the possibility of SD uses of a suppressed weapon, so that allows us to talk about all SD implications of suppressed weapons (like legalities)

If the 9mm really is quieter than the .45 out of a silencer, I'd be happy to switch my preference to the 9. Would the rounds have to be sub-sonic 9s though? or does the super sonic factor have a negligible effect when the silencer is involved?

The rounds will have to be subsonic as a supersonic round still breaks the sound barrier and has the sonic boom to prove it. It sounds more like a .22lr unsuppressed. The vast majority of 9mm 147gr loads are subsonic though. I believe all of the major defensive ammo manufacturers make 147gr rounds that are about 900-1000fps (speed of sound is a tad bit over 1100fps) and it should be pretty easy to find 147gr and 158gr fmj for practice.

 

[neviander]

It sounds more like a .22lr unsuppressed.

a pistol, or a rifle? I suppose they're similar, depending on the ammo used.

Again though, I regress back to the big/heavy/slow .45 vs. the light/fast 9mm. I always thought the advantage in the 9mm was it's speed, if heavier (but still not near as heavy) bullets are being used to intentionally slow it down for the silencer, that sort of negates the advantage.

 

[PedalBiker]

a pistol, or a rifle? I suppose they're similar, depending on the ammo used.

No they're not. A 22 pistol is significantly louder. So it's a good question.


The 147g 9mm is still rather "big" given that even a .338 rifle is considered on the large size. The older results with 147g 9mm was poor due to lack of expansion. If a 147g 9mm opens up it's around .6" and has enough sectional density to penetrate well. Also, 147g 9mm rounds are almost as fast as 185g 45 rounds and significantly faster than a 230g 45, so the speed advantage still holds, even if it is diminished.

My wife doesn't particularly like 38sp or 9mm but she does OK with them. I haven't asked her to try the .45 yet. Give her a .22 and she'll shoot all day.

I have electronic muffs in the bedroom, one set for each of us. I have hearing damage already, so the muffs are two fold, one to be able to hear better right off the bat and two to be able to hear after any potential shooting. The bulk of my hearing problems stem from two particular incidents where my hearing protection failed or was inadequate. I disagree that it's OK to plan on losing the rest of my hearing if I get faced wtih a HD scenario.

In fact, supressor laws in our country are basically criminal negligence. We know guns damage hearing, we know we can easily reduce this damage and yet we make it insanely difficult to do so. If your gun makes 130dB -140dB it will still be sufficiently loud to alert the neighbors to the trouble going on and you'll still need muffs. My 23dB muffs are not enough to prevent hearing damage.

 

[Prince Yamato]

9mm is quieter than 45 suppressed. The reason being that 45 requires a larger exit hole in the can, hence more gasses escape. In a side by side comparison, I would say 9mm is distinctly quieter.

 

[Telekinesis]

a pistol, or a rifle? I suppose they're similar, depending on the ammo used.

I would probably say its closer to a rifle. Maybe a bit quieter than either, but its a sound level most here are familiar with. I guess a better characterization of the sound would be the crack of a bullwhip?

Again though, I regress back to the big/heavy/slow .45 vs. the light/fast 9mm. I always thought the advantage in the 9mm was it's speed, if heavier (but still not near as heavy) bullets are being used to intentionally slow it down for the silencer, that sort of negates the advantage.

The heavy bullets aren't necessarily being used to slow it down just for suppressed use. The FBI lists quite a few 147gr (standard pressure) 9mm loads as passing their testing in regards to penetration and expansion, and those loads are typically the same loads issued to LE in departments that issue/allow the use of 9mm handguns. IIRC the FBI only lists 147gr and 124gr +P as acceptable rounds, there's nothing in the 115gr or 124 standard pressure range.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that 147gr 9mm rounds are proven performers regardless of anything you have connected to the gun. It just happens that they're subsonic which makes them attractive for use with a suppressor.

 

[JustinJ]

There is no telling what a prosecutor may try to make issue with but a silencer seems like a likely target. The big concern for me in deciding wether or not to have a silencer on my hd weapon is mandatory minimum sentences when used during the comission of a crime. So its not so much that the silencer will make one easier to convict but if found guilty one could be looking at a much stiffer sentence than otherwise would have. No such issue exists with night sights or lasers. If TX did not have Castle Doctrine and other certain laws that protect home owners who use a weapon for defense i wouldn't even consider it.

 

[zignal_zero]

If TX did not have Castle Doctrine and other certain laws that protect home owners who use a weapon for defense i wouldn't even consider it.

Really? I'm just the opposite - I would use whatever I had to to defend myself and my family, in my home, no matter what the law said. I do not recognize any entity as having the authority to tell me how I will defend my own home.

 

[W.E.G.]

Sure, suppressors are cool.

For indoor shooting, how about skip the whole suppressor ordeal, and just keep a pair of amplified ear-muffs near the gun?

The amplified muffs are way cheaper than a suppressor, they take up minimal space, they can cross state lines without written federal permission, they don't interest juries or newspaper reporters, and don't get nearly as hot as a suppressor when shooting drills.

 

[Sam1911]

they can cross state lines without written federal permission

So can silencers/suppressors. They are exempt from the Form 5320.20 notification requirement.

 

[thorazine]

Silencers thread on. The police won't get there for 10 minutes or so. I'm sure you can figure out what to do.

I second this idea. =D


But I am a trouble maker heh.

 

[Telekinesis]

For indoor shooting, how about skip the whole suppressor ordeal, and just keep a pair of amplified ear-muffs near the gun?

Ear pro only protects you, not your wife or kids who may or may not even be aware that there is a problem when the shooting starts. The shooter isn't the only one who can sustain hearing damage in a SD incident.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

You could easily go $2000 for a good set up. Possibly your cheapest would be a stock Glock 21, a Lone Wolf extended/threaded barrel, and the suppressor of your choice. Gun and LW barrel might be had for $750, and your suppressor for $650-$750, plus $200 transfer tax.

 

[MIgunguy]

38 responses and no mention of auditory shutdown in an SD situation?

 

[Telekinesis]

38 responses and no mention of auditory shutdown in an SD situation?

Auditory exclusion only affects your cognizance of the sound, not the damage it causes to your hearing. Its kind of like tunnel vision for hearing, both are caused by adrenalin. The problem is that the effects will not be as evident over time as you get better at controlling your adrenalin.

Ever get into a fist fight? A lot of times you will be so focused on your opponent that you won't even notice or hear other people in the room. Now, take a few years of hand to hand combat classes and then try it again. You will be calm, relaxed, and you will have much better situational awareness and will notice not only little things like your opponent's weight shifts, but also things like positioning within the room and other people who also may become involved. You have essentially eliminated the effects of tunnel vision based on your experience and controlling your adrenalin. The same thing can happen with auditory exclusion.

And even if you do experience auditory exclusion, there is no guarantee that others in your home will experience the same effect. You don't have to be the one firing the gun to experience hearing damage, you just have to be present (think of your wife or kids who are in the house).

 

[Prince Yamato]

You know what really works against you using a suppressor in a SD scenario? Other gun owners treating you like a social pariah. How about this:

There is no moral issue with using a suppressor in a SD scenario. There is no legal prohibition against using one in a SD scenario. There is no prohibition owing to tradition of using suppressors in a SD scenario.

ergo, you can use a suppressor in a self-defense scenario. Pre-meditation will not be in issue if it's someone breaking into your house.

You can all keep your imagined hypotheses, I will keep my hearing.

 

[gandog56]

But lasers are used in Star Wars. So maybe she's part of The Empire.

You mean all this time I thought I was a Jedi space ninja because I have a set of laser sights on my SIG, I wasn't?

 

[neviander]

ergo, you can use a suppressor in a self-defense scenario. Pre-meditation will not be in issue if it's someone breaking into your house.

Before I started this thread, I honestly did not even consider any sort of legal ramifications for shooting a home intruder. It being brought up was really interesting, but has not dissuaded me from getting a silencer set up.

I'm still ambivalent about either a .45 or a 9 though. My favorite, no silencer around, pistol cartridge is the 10mm, just above the .45, and is my carry caliber. Stepping down to the 9 feels uncomfortable for an HD situation, I appreciate the info about the 9 being quieter though, in all my travels on THR I never noticed that.

 

[Bamajohn]

Buy a good pair of amplified hearing protecors.

 

[BK]

And hope that the bad guys are obliging and give you enough time to put on your hearing protection before the show starts.

 

[jmorris]

9mm is quieter than 45 suppressed. The reason being that 45 requires a larger exit hole in the can, hence more gasses escape. In a side by side comparison, I would say 9mm is distinctly quieter.

you can't make a blanket statement like that. There is a lot more factors involved that just the diameter of the hole in the endcap. I have a 458socom can that makes less noise than an AAC EVO 9.

 

[JustinJ]

Quote:
If TX did not have Castle Doctrine and other certain laws that protect home owners who use a weapon for defense i wouldn't even consider it.

Really? I'm just the opposite - I would use whatever I had to to defend myself and my family, in my home, no matter what the law said.

I would use whatever i had also. Unless all you have is an integrally supressed firearm how would that ever be one's only option for home defense?

I do not recognize any entity as having the authority to tell me how I will defend my own home.

Unless you have an illegal subgun hidden under the bed for bad guys i doubt that to be true. Wether or not your recognize the authority that exists it can and will exert control over you.

There is no moral issue with using a suppressor in a SD scenario. There is no legal prohibition against using one in a SD scenario. There is no prohibition owing to tradition of using suppressors in a SD scenario.

ergo, you can use a suppressor in a self-defense scenario. Pre-meditation will not be in issue if it's someone breaking into your house.

I realize silencers are not prohibited for use in self defense however if the law disagrees with one's claim of self defense the penalties could suddenly become significantly more severe. I'm not arguing against their use but this should certainly be considered.

 

[Ironman]

I can't think of a better thread to show you this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2GchQ3orB0&sns=em


Sent from my iPhone

 

[hentown]

I wouldn't use any NFA weapon (including a suppressed weapon) for home defense. In case of a shooting, this would look terrible in front of a jury. They would think it was overkill, or that you were looking for trouble.

If you have to shoot in a HD situation, blast and sound are your friends. They enhance the intimidating effect of the weapon. In addition, an attached suppressor might have an adverse effect on the reliability of the weapon (unless this is set up exactly right). The added length of a suppressor also would make a handgun more unwieldy in tight quarters.

Truly absurd, informed advice.