If the Hearing Protection Act becomes law, will almost all guns be manufactured w/ threaded barrels?

[Aim1]

If the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) becomes law I assume that the rise in suppressor/silencer usage will be huge. The price of suppressors will come down and most people will own at least one or two. I think you'll see a lot of guns being sold with suppressors on them from the factory and gun manufactures will partner with suppressor companies to make this occur or come up with their own brand of suppressors much like Sig Sauer has done. There maybe regular guns and then that same gun with a threaded barrel, and also that same gun with a suppressor combo/package much like some guns come from the factory with a scope already mounted and sighted in from the factory. Some people will just never have an interest in suppressors however, so you don't want every gun to have a threaded barrel, but I think that suppressors will become very popular and threaded barrels may become a version of almost every large scale manufactured weapon, it may become a standard for many guns, same as how iron sightless, optics only rifles become the standard/norm and iron sighted guns which had always been the standard become the rarity, you mostly only see iron sights on big bore African game rifles and small .22's now. That was a huge changes many people suspected would never happen and although some people only want a rifle with iron sights, it's not the standard anymore not and almost all rifles now come iron sightless and optics only.

Obviously some guns will never come with a threaded barrel like a Winchester 1885 Highwall single shot. But others such as pistols, rifles, and even shotguns will. I think shotguns would be one of the few guns that would mostly not come with threaded barrels from the factory. However, you could purchase threaded barrels separately from the factory or aftermarket. Perhaps gun companies will make threaded from the factory and non-threaded from the factory versions of each firearm.

I remember when AR's started being offered in the flat-top optic ready version without the carry handle and it was revolutionary. People couldn't believe you didn't need the carry handle. Some said it would never become standard. I thought, this is the future. Next thing you knew in a few years, flat-top was the standard. I wonder if threaded barrels will be the same way.


If the Hearing Protection Act becomes law, will almost all guns be manufactured with threaded barrels?

 

[DPris]

No.
Denis

 

[fpgt72]

Another No vote.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

I don't doubt that more guns will be offered with threaded barrels and I bet a lot more will be offered that are integrally suppressed, but it won't be all guns.

 

[KevininPa]

Maybe some to raise their sales. But my real guess is that it will be offered as an option at higher cost. I also expect silencers to cost the same or even more. After all, the general public will have $200 dollars more in their pocket to ease that instant gratification factor, won't we?

 

[Gtscotty]

In the unlikely event that the HPA becomes law, I would say that, yes a much higher proportion of guns will come with threaded barrels. In the last decade or so, factory threaded rifles and pistols have become much more common in conjunction with the rise average Joe suppressor ownership.... All in spite of the onerous restrictions currently in place. If the HPA were to become law suppressors would be everywhere and firearms manufactures would of course respond to demand. To me the most interesting effect would be all the integrally suppressed guns that would start to pop up, no reason to buy a do it all suppressor when they are basically unregulated and can be built into anything.

All of that would, of course, be dependent on the highly unlikely passage of a politically expensive act that's not going to have much of an ROR for any politician.

 

[Acera]

I think they may be offered by more manufacturers as an option or factory replacement part.

However, IIRC some states have laws that prohibit threaded muzzles. I think PRC does not like them on pistols, makes them an assault weapon??

Next, a threaded barrel may not be the best for duty and concealed carry.



.

 

[Sam1911]

I think it would become even more popular than today, for rifles. Certainly not universal, but very, very common. And, yes, some manufacturers like Ruger, would probably start offering factory-made integrally suppressed models which would be extremely cool.

In handguns I think the trend would be much more muted. Yes, most people who got into silencers up to now probably started with their handguns, but that's a bit of a novelty item. A silencer generally doubles the size of a handgun, and makes it semi-impossible to conceal, slower to maneuver, challenging to sight, and so forth. A great many of the things people buy handguns for simply won't work with a suppressor mounted. Competitions like IDPA, USPSA, SASS (obviously!), concealed carry, protection while hiking and such -- no dice. All a silencer is really useful for on a pistol is quiet range time, and maybe possibly, for the "home defense" sock drawer gun. So I see threaded barrels becoming a more common factory option, but not in any way universal.

But rifles are a whole different ballgame, seeing as they already are large, unconcealable items, often shot from a bench or rest, and even when used in dynamic shooting styles, the silencer might only make the overall size something around 1/5-1/4 longer. No worries about sighting/scoping issues with a silencer on the barrel. Benefits for accuracy and recoil, as well as making a significant difference in cutting down blast. I think a lot more rifles would come from the factory at least threaded, and possibly with a "performance matched" (or whatever marketing term they invent) silencer already mounted.

 

[wally]

No it doesn't really make sense for sub-compact carry guns to be made longer for a threaded barrel. These are among the hottest selling guns at present.

But I suspect most full size pistols would start coming threaded -- opens up another purchase as an alternative to fitting a threaded barrel to an existing gun, as generally most folks not using an optic seem to want taller "suppressor sights", although they are not really necessary in my experience. Retro-fitting new barrel and sights to an existing gun can start approaching the cost of a new gun for some common models.

I expect the real innovation and creativity to be in integrally suppressed pistols, with things like the Silerenco "Maxim" leading the way.

 

[CoRoMo]

I was looking at a soup can the other day and thought about the probable results of a passed Hearing Protection Act.

Suppressors are friggin' expensive, or can be, because currently they are a lifetime investment; they have to last forever and ever, if possible.

But if they were deregulated, suppressors could be stamped out about as cheaply as the cans in the cabinet that hold vegetables. They could cost close to nothing and be disposable. I think a very simple and cheap suppressor that's made out of materials like, and in a mass production process like a soup can is made, could still last many hundreds of rounds before it's time to toss it in the trash and go spend another $3 on the next one.

If so, these high tech, uber tough, super alloy suppressors will drift from popularity. I know that I'd never buy one again if I could instead have a $3, stamped out, perishable alternative that doesn't require all the government red tape to acquire.

 

[Jim Watson]

As said, more but not all.

I have not been around a HV rifle mit silencer for some time. Are current suppressors naked ear safe? I have heard pistol and SMG suppressors that were not subjectively loud, but the last .308 I was around, I did not want to have my plugs out.

 

[Sam1911]

No. I don't think anyone ever recommends rifle suppressors as hearing-safe. They'll take a few dB off, kill off a lot of blast, often help with accuracy, and mitigate recoil, but they don't come down into safe hearing territory.

 

[hdwhit]

Aim1 wrote:
If the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) becomes law I assume that the rise in suppressor/silencer usage will be huge.

I would not make that same assumption. My thinking is that:

• At my LGS, most models of silencers cost more than the guns to which they will be attached. If I had $1,500 or $2,000 to spend on a gun and silencer, I would probably decide to buy two guns or perhaps just buy one and spend the remaining $700 to $1,000 on something nice for my wife.
• Silencer manufacturers are currently set up to produce and distribute at the rate demanded by the current market, Ramping up production and expanding dealer networks will take time and with new demand in the face of flat supply, prices are likely to rise - perhaps sharply - in the short-term. That brings me back to my first point.
• If enough demand does materialize, silencer manufacturers will ramp up production and after a while prices may ease. At that point gun manufacturers will have to decide whether there is enough demand for each model they make to offer it with a threaded barrel. A number of states have restrictions on guns with threaded barrels and the passage of the HPA would not necessarily change this. Thus, each manufacturer will have to decide whether it is worth the time, effort, distruption to their production process, the recordkeeping and regulatory compliance to offer guns with threaded barrels and make sure they get only where they are supposed to go.
• I recognize that as soon as the HPA was passed, there would be a number of entrepreneurs to offer "aftermarket" solutions (i.e. clam-on mounts and the like) but I do not see them becoming prevalent enough to single-handedly drive demand for silencers.
• I think this is likely to come down to a question of aesthetics and marketing. For instance, I would not buy a bolt action rifle with a threaded barrel since it simply does not fit my idea of what a classic hunting rifle should look like. If most of the market feels the same way, then that's a large segment of the gun market that will probably never see threaded barrels. The lever-action community may feel the same way.
• Thus, even if they cease to be NFA items, the cost of silencers combined with the few guns currently able to accomodate them and the likely reluctance of manufacturers to offer "41-State" guns will, in my opinion, keep silencers a niche item for the immediate future.

 

[wally]

No. I don't think anyone ever recommends rifle suppressors as hearing-safe. They'll take a few dB off, kill off a lot of blast, often help with accuracy, and mitigate recoil, but they don't come down into safe hearing territory.

Depends of course on the rifle and suppressor but the db reduction of a quality can is usually a few db more than the bulk of the "ear muffs" on the market which are typically rated 24-28 db.

I feel a gun like my SCAR 17S with its highly effective muzzle brake is louder with my best ear muffs (rated 28db) than is my DPMS i.308 suppressed without the muffs. I don't recommend a steady diet of shooting suppressed guns without earpro but its fun do do sometimes. The supersonic crack of a rifle and ringing steel plates with handguns are surprisingly loud and have me put the earpro back on pretty quick.

I've little doubt that shooting suppressed sub-sonic .22lr, .45ACP, and 9mm is hearing safe when shooting into dirt backstops.

 

[Havok7416]

The highest reduction I have seen offered in a rifle silencer (and this is just the manufacturer's claim) only drops the db's down to about 119, which is still harmful to hearing in less than 1 second. Pistols might drop a little lower, but they still aren't as quiet as most people think.

I don't see a lot changing in terms of barrels honestly. Virtually every AR has a threaded muzzle, as do many other guns already. There are a handful of pistols that are likewise offered with a threaded barrel, but I can't see them being as popular long-term. A lot of people might go out and buy one at first, but once they figure out what a pain a silencer is (to a regular Joe who doesn't shoot often), I can't see many sticking with it.

 

[Ed Ames]

"Almost all?" No. In some categories almost all guns already have them, but in others I don't see why threaded barrels would ever become the norm.

Will there be changes in what people expect? Definitely.

Before I had silencers I considered a threaded barrel on a handgun to be a problem at best. A threaded barrel guaranteed I couldn't take the gun any place like California, added cost, looked kinda goofy, made cleaning more difficult, and didn't do anything for me. Now I look for factory threads or reasonably priced aftermarket threaded barrels before buying. I have several pistols that I wouldn't have purchased if not for the threads. To put it in perspective: I have a threaded .22lr conversion for a Kel-Tec P11 and I've burned through many boxes of ammo shooting a p11 with a silencerco sparrow. Never would've guessed at how useful that setup was, prior to having the sparrow. On the other hand, threaded barrels are not something I want on my concealed carry guns when in "carry" dress.

When it comes to rifles, I generally don't want muzzle brakes, and I don't generally care about flash hiding, so a threaded muzzle was basically a negative. Now I have rifles that were purchased specifically because they came with threads, several rifles I intend to have threaded, and for the most part I just don't see why I would buy a rifle that wasn't at least threadable. If it doesn't come with threads I take it to the range to make sure it is worth additional investment and then it goes on the "to have threaded" list. Style doesn't much matter...I have a lever gun that will be threaded as soon as I find someone I trust to do the job.

As far as sound level reduction: it all adds up. If you can take a 165db rifle down to 140, and then hearing protection can take that down to 110, you are doing less harm to your hearing. It isn't perfect but I'll take it.

 

[wally]

it all adds up. If you can take a 165db rifle down to 140, and then hearing protection can take that down to 110, you are doing less harm to your hearing

Perfectly true except the suppressor gets the 165db fun down to about 135 and the muffs or plugs get it down to ~110.

As I said earlier, quality suppressors average a bit above 30 db reduction while ear plugs or muffs generally do 24-28 db, unless you get the Audiologist custom fitted plugs which should do better.

The highest reduction I have seen offered in a rifle silencer (and this is just the manufacturer's claim) only drops the db's down to about 119, which is still harmful to hearing in less than 1 second.

The 119 is a reading level not a measure of the reduction, if it started as 165 db unsuppressed that would be a 46db reduction which is higher than I've ever seen claimed as a specification (not that I've seen them all). There is a time-intensity value that defines the damage thresholds. Its complicated, but folks have been "protecting" their hearing while shooting with 24-28db muffs for a very long time, the short duration of the gun shot sound is probably the key to the effectiveness of the normal earmuff hearing protector, the fact that the shooter is in the "acoustic shadow" of the gun helps, as does the fact that others are usually further away from the muzzle than the shooter.

 

[Havok7416]

Wally, I think you and Ed are on the same page, plus or minus 5db. His statement and your reply are almost mirror images.

I agree the impulse has something (a lot) to do with it and of course decibels are not linear in their effect. I also don't think you will get zero damage to your hearing wearing plugs and/or muffs. I wear excellent hearing protection at the range in addition to work where I get tested annually. I still have a bit of hearing loss and I definitely have mild tinnitus.

If you happen to shoot on a range with others present, you may well be exposed to gunfire noises well above the 1 second mark just from the sheer volume.

119db is listed by at least two manufacturers that I am aware of. AAC lists a 39db reduction on their website (which again may or may not be accurate) for .300 Blackout. The same silencer will provide 25db reduction when using .308 Win.

 

[1911 guy]

The thought that comes to my mind is thread protectors. Thread a certain percentage of production and ship them with the thread protectors installed. When the can is off the gun, install it. When you want the can on, twist off the protector which is nothing more than a threaded ring, and screw on the suppressor. The concept is almost universal in the optic market.

 

[Deaf Smith]

If the Hearing Protection Act becomes law, will almost all guns be manufactured w/ threaded barrels?

No... but like trigger locks, ear muffs will come with each gun.

Now won't that be a nightmare?

Deaf

 

[Theohazard]

I have not been around a HV rifle mit silencer for some time. Are current suppressors naked ear safe?

No, they aren't. The silencer industry uses the term "hearing safe" to describe any silencer under 140dB. This is a deliberately misleading term, and it's a misrepresentation of the rules for noise exposure. The 140 dB threshold is what OSHA uses for the upper limit of the safe dB threshold for a one-time impact noise. But that doesn't mean any sound below that is safe and won't cause permanent hearing loss.

Here are the decibel guidelines for daily exposure as described by the American Hearing Research Foundation (emphasis added):

"Habitual exposure to noise above 85 dB will cause a gradual hearing loss in a significant number of individuals, and louder noises will accelerate this damage. For unprotected ears, the allowed exposure time decreases by one half for each 5 dB increase in the average noise level. For instance, exposure is limited to 8 hours per day at 90 dB, 4 hours per day at 95 dB, and 2 hours per day at 100 dB. The highest permissible noise exposure for the unprotected ear is 115 dB for 15 minutes per day. Any noise above 140 dB is not permitted.
[...]
Combined use [of ear plugs and muffs] should be considered when noise exceeds 105 dB. Note that for such situations, it may be that there is no type of hearing protection that will stop a very loud noise from affecting you."

http://american-hearing.org/disorders/noise-induced-hearing-loss/

In comparison, a centerfire rifle with a silencer is usually in the 135 - 140 dB range. A pistol with a silencer and subsonic ammo is usually in the 125 - 130 dB range. And a .22 with a silencer and subsonic ammo is usually in the 115 - 120 dB range.

Now, I'd be interested to know how the recommended exposure levels translate to an intermittent sound like gunfire. I'm not at all claiming that the exposure times allowed for each dB level directly translate to gunfire. But those numbers still show that suppressed gunfire can cause hearing loss, it just probably takes longer than a constant noise would take.

The highest reduction I have seen offered in a rifle silencer (and this is just the manufacturer's claim) only drops the db's down to about 119

Those claims are for subsonic 300 Blackout, which performs more like a pistol round than a rifle round when it comes to silencers. Supersonic 300 Blackout is usually in the 130 - 135 dB range at least. (Also, that 119 dB number you saw was probably from SilencerCo; they claim the Omega gets 119 dB with subsonic 300 Blackout. But independent tests of the Omega can't reproduce dB numbers that low.)

 

[Havok7416]

The 119 number I referenced actually came from Advanced Armaments, but SilencerCo I do believe has a similar number posted. Both listed the number using subsonic .300 Blackout. Supersonice as you mentioned is higher.

 

[hq]

Suppressors are friggin' expensive, or can be, because currently they are a lifetime investment; they have to last forever and ever, if possible.

In countries where suppressors aren't regulated much if at all, the quality varies quite a bit. Top shelf, lifetime warranty models start at $250-300, basic suppressors you can expect 10,000-round centerfire caliber service life of are somewhere between $50 and $150 and the cheapest alternatives are thread adaptors from common barrel threads to soda bottle. 17oz PET bottle can take anywhere between 100 and 500 rounds of .22 or 50-100 rounds of 9mm. Some suppressor models are rebuildable with removable metal or composite baffles, many are welded hence not user serviceable, some integral models consist of a gas expansion chamber in the middle of the barrel and so on. The variety is huge.

Like in car mufflers, there are huge differences in noise reduction levels of different suppressor designs. The most expensive ones are not always the quietest or even the most durable.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I expect we'll see a marked increase, especially with rifles and service sized handguns. Or at least the option.

There's bound to be a few integrally suppresses critters, too, but though less than a separate can, it does add weight and bulk, so where it concerns guns that are to be carried much and shot little, the pro/con list is very much in favor of unsuppressed. I love shooting suppressed, but I'm not about to more than double the size and weight of my DB9, nor do I want to deal with an extra 8" and 12 ounces hanging off the end of a rifle that I walk many miles in rough terrain with to maybe fire once or twice.

On the other hand, suppressors are awesome for range use, varmint shooting or hunting that will mostly be done from a static position and likely at night (such as hogs).

Like in car mufflers, there are huge differences in noise reduction levels of different suppressor designs. The most expensive ones are not always the quietest or even the most durable.

The higher dollar mufflers here have an emphasis on flow and tone, not DB reduction. They are, in fact, less restrictive and therefore louder than the cheapies. People here will never associate names like Magnaflow, Flowmaster and Borla with quieter, but they will (rightfully) assocaitate quality with the increased price.

 

[hq]

On the other hand, suppressors are awesome for range use, varmint shooting or hunting that will mostly be done from a static position and likely at night (such as hogs).

Home defence too. I wouldn't imagine removing the can from my bedside AR when there's a chance it might have to be fired indoors. 11" shorty at 950rpm is already incredibly loud outdoors.

They are, in fact, less restrictive and therefore louder than the cheapies. People here will never associate names like Magnaflow, Flowmaster and Borla with quieter, but they will (rightfully) assocaitate quality with the increased price.

Sport and racing mufflers are louder, and there's a solid reason for it in gas flow and exhaust pulse harmonics, whereas the tone of noise or gas flow characteristics aren't marketing points for suppressors. It all boils down to price/weight/size/durability/dB and when you can get another over the counter anytime for relatively little cash, price vs. durability is just a minor consideration.