silencer, would you ?

[oldfool]

if NOT for the legal silliness and special fees for silencers on rifles, would you put any on some of yours ?

if NOT, why not ?

I would bet they would be fairly inexpensive and readily available, if it wasn't for the legal mumbo jumbo, and I would be real inclined to use them on such as range rifles and hunting rifles, if that were the case.
(leastways closed breech rifles, where they best serve intended purpose)
Just ain't worth the hassle to me, things being what they are at present

what downside would there be ?

PS
no intent here to suggest in any way breaking or even bending the law
just never saw any common sense in those laws, especially since folks have become more aware of potential hearing damage in last couple of decades
just ask me, if you don't mind repetitive "what ?, speak louder please" for a reply

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Absolutely I would use them. Even with the fees, I am inclined to get a couple. In part, they are a safety device that helps to preclude hearing damage.

Of course, most states don't allow their use for the hunting of game animals, but many do for use against varmints.

 

[Shear_stress]

would you put any on some of yours

Yes. As many guns as I could afford to equip. Not a big fan of loud noises.

 

[madcratebuilder]

They are very popular in my neck of the woods. .22's 5.56 and 7.62 are reduced in noise levels a lot, particularly .22 pistols. One time cost for the tax stamp and most silencers are rebuildable.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I did, even with the silliness and fees. The upside is they are quieter, though nowhere near what Hollywood would have you believe (at least in centerfire rifles). They have been great for introducing new shooters to the sport since the new shooters love the novelty of shooting a suppressor-equipped rifle as well as the less blast aspect.

The downside is that 20oz of weight hanging off the muzzle screws up balance and since they work by converting sound into heat energy, you have a sizzling hot brand on the end of your muzzle after a magazine or so. Point of impact changes, etc. They are fun; but there are definitely drawbacks as well.

 

[trultemor]

Ill put them on as many rifles I can.
They are relative unexspensive.

 

[DrLaw]

If legal, I would put them on in a heartbeat. There is nothing pleasant about muzzle blast. If a can will suppress the noise and blast, I wouldn't hesitate. I also think that they should be allowed for hunting (though it might be hard with traditional muzzleloaders )

The Doc is out now.

PS, they are not legal in my state.

 

[kwelz]

I am waiting on the paperwork to come back on 2 right now. So yes I would.

Bartholomew Roberts hit on some of the downsides, although newer cans have come a long way in reducing the problems.

POI shift is minor in most good cans now. Surefire and AAC have really done a good job here.

They have also become a lot lighter. The Surefire Micro is only 12oz and 4 inches long. Put it on an SBR and you add nothing over a 16 inch gun.

Not much you can do about the heat however. That is just part of the science that you can't get around.


I do feel that if these silly laws were gone, we would see better cans on the market. It is very hard for a company to put a lot into R&D for such a limited market.

 

[Tirod]

The silly laws aren't all Federal. To possess in Missouri, a FFL is required. That means at least a C&R application to fill out and possess before the ATF purchasing process.

If you are willing to deal with the paperwork, and do some research, the expense isn't as high as some think. Vltor is still planning on production of the Volks suppressor, which is patterned after the lighter duty hunting models used in Europe. Priced around $400, it could introduce a consumer friendly era of suppressors.

Then there is the build it yourself crowd - once the tax stamp is in hand, constructing an effective suppressor from automotive freeze plugs for less than $20 can be done. As more is known about how they work, prices will fall as small makers take advantage of the niches in the market.

 

[bigfatdave]

I would at least suppress rimfire handguns and rifles, or anything I'm likely to be shooting alone.

Not much point in quieting a gun you end up shooting next to some yahoo running loud, but otherwise I don't see a downside for range or hunting guns. I'll take light/small/fast for carry, though, I [strike]don't know[/strike] can't think of a gun suitable for EDC that would still be suitable for EDC after adding a suppressor, anyone have ideas there?

The same goes for stocked pistols and/or shorty long guns, particularly in cases where a barrel swap is easy.

 

[kaferhaus]

I don't know of any state where it's legal to hunt with suppressors.... most specifically prohibit it....

 

[dirtymike1]

I have plans of picking one up sometime next year. Since my hearing is already damaged from playing in bands and working on/being around race cars, so anything I can do to save what I have left is high on my list of things to do.

Trying to explain it to my GF that way.... that's another story

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It is often prohibited for the hunting of game animals; however, there are a lot of animals that do not fall into that category, such as coyotes, or feral pigs here in Texas. And if, as the OP postulates, they were legal for hunting use, I'm sure they would be much more popular for that as well since most of the drawbacks are less noticeable in a hunting rifle.

 

[GCBurner]

If not for the $200 tax and all the Federal paperwork rigamarole, I wouldn't mind having one on a home defense pistol; if I ever had to fire it indoors, it would cut the flash and muzzle blast, without the need to be wearing hearing protection. I don't see any need for one on a hunting rifle. For quiet shooting with my .22 when squirrel hunting, I used CCI CB rounds in my rifle; out of a rifle, they don't sound much louder than a handclap.

 

[CraigC]

I'd have a bunch if they were cheaper and easier to procure. As it is, I'll probably end up with two or three. I really need to move on a rimfire model before too long, been wanting one for a while.

 

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

No.

I spent 20 dollars on hearing protection 20+ years ago. Works for any firearm platform I use (and running farm equipment, chainsaws, trimmers, etc). The only time I am not wearing it and shooting, I am hunting.

 

[redbullitt]

YES. I am waiting on some even with the fees and legal hoops lol.

I'd have one on everything if not for the cost. The hoops are not so bad anymore; you kinda get used to it.

Why on earth would you not want to minimize recoil, blast, and report?!!?

 

[LiquidTension]

I've got a few - I never go to the range without them.

 

[MCMXI]

if NOT for the legal silliness and special fees for silencers on rifles, would you put any on some of yours ?

Yes, but more importantly, I'd want them on everyone else's rifles too. I took a 2-day tactical precision rifle course last year, and spent both days sandwiched between shooters using muzzle brakes. After being abused by the blast from hundreds of rounds over two days, I'd had enough of a beating to last a lifetime. We can't own suppressors here, but I've shot a number of firearms with suppressors attached. They are a big deal for anyone to the left or right of the shooter ... such as a spotter. The reality is that Hollywood has stereotyped the suppressor as being a tool of the assassin or hitman. This is a pity and it's one of the main reasons that many of the uninformed view them with fear and trepidation.

If I could own a suppressor, I'd have one for each caliber "family" so that I'd have three or four to move around between numerous rifles chambered for the same cartridge/caliber. For some of us with rifles in the double or triple digits, this would be considerably cheaper than having one suppressor per rifle.

 

[Justin]

If cans were as easy to purchase as buying a handgun, I'd probably already own at least two or three.

 

[RP88]

Probably wouldn't use them (at least not often), but I'd pick some up.

 

[sappyg]

i sure would like to have one. i'm just not into the expense and hassle of buying one.

 

[Z-Michigan]

I would use them most of the time if I could - my state doesn't allow them even if you're willing to jump through the ridiculous federal hoops.

Extremely anti-gun Britain sells silencers over the counter for $50 with no added regulation. You're basically expected to use one as a courtesy to everyone else. And it's hard to think of any developed country that is as rabidly anti-gun as Britain.

 

[Mr_Pale_Horse]

My experience with a silenced, full auto, select fire HK-21 belt fed, was that the hypersonic sound of the round going down range was far louder than a standard 22 long rifle, at least sitting next to it.

On a muzzleloader, I foresee a nightmare keeping it clean.

On a hunting rifle, it throws off POI and handling for practice, and has to come off to go afield.

I dunno, but I think a shotgun might not like the wad or shot.

Maybe when they are as common as lug nuts, I will consider one.

 

[Walkalong]

Yes, without the hassle and dollars needed, I would have some already. Suppressed .22 LR would be fun. No head gear needed.