I have thought of this - in the (knock on wood) unlikely event I have an intruder, loud gun noise is the least of my concerns, but still it is a concern and if a silencer knocks the sound down, why not? Other than being expensive as hell that is? Anyone else own?
Silencer?
- Thread starter gunny2
- Start date
- Status
45/30-06OKIE
Member
I have a SilencerCo Sparrow on my CZ 457 22lr bolt action rifle and it's stupid quiet! Dad and I got our dealer SOT for NFA stuff and starting July 1st we can get all the suppressors we want lol. We are going to get a SilencerCo Hybrid 46M and test it out in a bunch of stuff, especially my 1911!
AlexanderA
Member
My personal opinion (based on my somewhat limited actual experience) is that silencers (suppressors) are overrated. Sure, they reduce the decibels, but they don't "silence" to whisper-quiet Hollywood levels. So why bother? (It would be different if there wasn't all the bureaucratic red tape involved.)
(I once owned a factory silencer for my MAC 11. Meh. Heat trap. The Nomex sleeve was absolutely essential for handling the weapon. My other experience was in letting my .50 M2HB be used as a test bed for an experimental silencer. That silencer alone was like 3 feet long! Yeah, it worked, but it wasn't very practical.)
(I once owned a factory silencer for my MAC 11. Meh. Heat trap. The Nomex sleeve was absolutely essential for handling the weapon. My other experience was in letting my .50 M2HB be used as a test bed for an experimental silencer. That silencer alone was like 3 feet long! Yeah, it worked, but it wasn't very practical.)
Because they still as far as I can tell reduce the sound significantly and I'd rather err on the side of not screwing up my ears as much as possible?
?
AJC1
Member
I've herd talk of SD situations having different rules with special permit guns. I cannot speak to it, but the opposing counsel will leverage every possibility
Why wouldn't you use a suppressor if you could? Our primary home defense firearm has one attached.
That "talk" would be incorrect. The rules are no different. It comes down to whether the shooting was justified or not. A prosecutor may want to make a SD shooting seem like it wasn't in self defense if an NFA item is used, but the fundamentals are whether the shooting was justified or not.
LocoGringo
Member
My primary home defense weapon is a "two stamper"...a 12.5" barreled AR-15 (SBR) in 6.8 SPC with a suppressor. It's loaded with 90 grain TNT handloads that are exiting the barrel at around 2600 fps. I can't think of a better primary home defense weapon. I also own 4 other suppressors and am waiting the arrival of #6. Two of my silencers are .22 LR, so those are really just for fun, but they're REALLY fun.
It's disappointing the first time you hear a rifle with a silencer because it isn't anywhere near what Hollywood portrays, but after you use one for a while, you appreciate that the gunshot isn't ear splitting and recoil is reduced significantly. My son took his first deer last season with an AR-15 chambered in 6.8 SPC with a 7" titanium suppressor (not the home defense rifle) and it was a perfect experience.
Manage expectations and you'll find they are useful, but shouldn't be regulated anywhere near what they are now. In this aspect, Europe actually has it right.
It's disappointing the first time you hear a rifle with a silencer because it isn't anywhere near what Hollywood portrays, but after you use one for a while, you appreciate that the gunshot isn't ear splitting and recoil is reduced significantly. My son took his first deer last season with an AR-15 chambered in 6.8 SPC with a 7" titanium suppressor (not the home defense rifle) and it was a perfect experience.
Manage expectations and you'll find they are useful, but shouldn't be regulated anywhere near what they are now. In this aspect, Europe actually has it right.
tws3b2
Member
"The fundamentals are whether the shooting was justified or not".
Nope. The fundamentals are whether the prosecutor can Convince the jury the shooting was Unjustified or not. If the prosecutor thinks holding up a gun with a silencer in front of a jury, along with some fancy lawyer words will help him do that. He surely will.
Personally, I wouldn't take the chance.
Courtroom tactics aren't "fundamentals". They're arguments to win a case if you're prosecuted, but the legal fundamentals are whether the shooting was justified with self defense being the principal justification.
A friend of mine was the first case of self defense with a legally owned NFA machine gun in the US. The prosecutor tried using the fact that a Ruger AC 556was used to fight off his attackers as somehow making the self defense argument invalid because a machine gun was used. The jury saw through that red herring and acquitted Gary of the charges because it was a justified shooting and what was used wasn't relevant to the fact he was legally defending his life and that of his girlfriend. This isn't theory or internet "talk", but case law.
No one is arguing that anyone SHOULD use a legally owned and tax stamped suppressor, but there are no special rules against it.
A friend of mine was the first case of self defense with a legally owned NFA machine gun in the US. The prosecutor tried using the fact that a Ruger AC 556was used to fight off his attackers as somehow making the self defense argument invalid because a machine gun was used. The jury saw through that red herring and acquitted Gary of the charges because it was a justified shooting and what was used wasn't relevant to the fact he was legally defending his life and that of his girlfriend. This isn't theory or internet "talk", but case law.
No one is arguing that anyone SHOULD use a legally owned and tax stamped suppressor, but there are no special rules against it.
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
Keep in mind also that an NFA item used in a self defense shooting is going to get confiscated by the authorities, at least until the case is resolved. That's a reason not to use a high-value item such as a machine gun. Suppressors, maybe not so much.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,236
I have a number of them and use them often where they have reduced the amount of noise I have been exposed to. Almost always outside.
I don’t have them as handy for inside use, probably because the extra levels of security I have put in place to keep people on the outside also makes it the least of my concerns too (I’ll knock on wood with you here). That said, I don’t shoot timed matches with them either, unless I am just goofing off, they add both weight and length being two “why nots”, with exposure to sound light being the only benefit to a situation where speed and mobility would probably be higher on the list.
I accept those two when the likelihood of actually firing goes up though. Say, chicken defense outside but that’s more because Mrs. Morris would probably kill them all herself if I started shooting predators while she was sleeping with unsuppressed firearms and unfortunately they do come around from time to time.
Last edited:
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
+1... I agree. The only allure that suppressors have for me is that they're off-limits and are the forbidden fruit which makes them look cool and gives them the cool factor. They aren't that quiet, you can still hear the shots from far away, you should still need hearing protection, in most cases you have to use neutered weaker ammo that's subsonic to get better results. For home defense I rather just keep a pair of hearing protection on my nightstand as well, and call it a day. KISS method.... To those who choose to use them, good for them, but that's only my personal opinion.
So no ear plugs?
FWIW, I think a suppressor on a HD firearm is a good idea. In the event of a break in, I do not expect to have time to put hearing protection on.
westernrover
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2018
- Messages
- 1,613
I don't expect to have time to put the silencer on. It's possible that I happen to have a firearm with a silencer available nearby and I can reach it, but that plan severely limits the circumstances in which that firearm will be useful. The attack would have to occur in just the right manner, in just the right time, and in just the right place for that gear to be the choice to employ in defense. The handgun I keep on my person is much more likely to be the gear that is available in otherwise unpredictable circumstances. Therein lies the reason not to use a suppressor -- they're not practical to carry.
AlexanderA
Member
Bingo! I've come to the conclusion that, for a lot of people, owning any NFA item is mostly about bragging rights. Having one proves that you have gone through a time-consuming process, and therefore must be a "serious" gun person.
For machine guns -- even belt-feds -- there are usually semiautomatic clones available, and these are just as effective (even, perhaps, more so) as FA when ammunition consumption is considered. When I was collecting MG's, back in the 70's and 80's, the prices were measured in the hundreds, not thousands, of dollars. So buying a Thompson for $750, or a BAR for $950, was a rational thing to do. Paying today's prices, IMO, is not a rational thing to do. Unless you are one of those who subscribe to the "greater fool theory."
MachIVshooter
Member
All of our HD weapons have cans in them. So does just about everything else except for revolvers and milsurps.
As for any perceived legal reason not to, unless the can itself is contraband, not something I'd worry about. Perception could matter if we were talking self defense claims in public with a carry gun, but that's a more difficult affirmative defense for many reasons. In your dwelling, the prerequistes for using deadly force against an intruder are far, far less stringent in most places in the U.S., and unlike the extra effort and considerations that would go into carrying a suppressed weapon on your person that may be considered in the same way as extra weapons or other things which might be perceived as excessive, construed as looking for a fight , there's no case to be made for that in a home defense situation where you would not be encumbered by it and obviously aren't seeking conflict in your own home. To the contrary, it's east to point out that you were protecting yourself and family from harm, including hearing damage.
IMO, the only legal liability consideration that matters in selecting a home defense weapon or ammo is over-penetration, a round leaving the structure.
As for any perceived legal reason not to, unless the can itself is contraband, not something I'd worry about. Perception could matter if we were talking self defense claims in public with a carry gun, but that's a more difficult affirmative defense for many reasons. In your dwelling, the prerequistes for using deadly force against an intruder are far, far less stringent in most places in the U.S., and unlike the extra effort and considerations that would go into carrying a suppressed weapon on your person that may be considered in the same way as extra weapons or other things which might be perceived as excessive, construed as looking for a fight , there's no case to be made for that in a home defense situation where you would not be encumbered by it and obviously aren't seeking conflict in your own home. To the contrary, it's east to point out that you were protecting yourself and family from harm, including hearing damage.
IMO, the only legal liability consideration that matters in selecting a home defense weapon or ammo is over-penetration, a round leaving the structure.
Last edited:
Speedo66
Member
If you’re being prosecuted for attempted murder or murder, I think the value of the firearm used is the least of your worries.
Soonerpesek
Member
I do believe there are 42 states that say otherwise..............................
Only my experience (and my opinion),
I have suppressed firearms in .22, .35, .40, and .45 calibers that are completely hearing safe minus ear protection.
A few of them are darn close to "Hollywood quiet", 'bout the only thing you hear is the action and the ping of steel or the thud of the berm.............
They are pretty "cool" and the fact that we can shoot in a group without ear pro is pretty "cool" also.................
MachIVshooter
Member
Even in an obviously justified self or home defense shooting, you can expect the weapon to be confiscated and held for the duration of the investigation. It may be brief, but LE handling of evidence items is notoriously careless. So it is sound advice to not use something you're particularly fond of, not because it'll be gone forever, but because it's unlikely to be returned in the same condition it was taken.
With suppressors? Meh. They're tools, and easily refinished. Many folks prefer them well-worn.
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
You still need permission slips in all 50 states, and they're banned otherwise.I do believe there are 42 states that say otherwise..............................
Yes, but you have to use lower powered typically more expensive ammo to get that quiet. Not tried and true hunting or self defense ammo.Only my experience (and my opinion),
I have suppressed firearms in .22, .35, .40, and .45 calibers that are completely hearing safe minus ear protection.
A few of them are darn close to "Hollywood quiet", 'bout the only thing you hear is the action and the ping of steel or the thud of the berm.............
They are pretty "cool" and the fact that we can shoot in a group without ear pro is pretty "cool" also.................
Space Ghost
Member
My primary home defense weapon is an 11.5" SBR, and it has a suppressor on it.
With 28 years of service (including multiple deployments) under my belt, I know what firing a weapon inside a structure (and a vehicle) sounds like, and have no desire to ever do that again without a can.
Hope like hell I never have to, but if some dirtbag ever makes me... I wanna be able to hear them cry for their mommy after.
With 28 years of service (including multiple deployments) under my belt, I know what firing a weapon inside a structure (and a vehicle) sounds like, and have no desire to ever do that again without a can.
Hope like hell I never have to, but if some dirtbag ever makes me... I wanna be able to hear them cry for their mommy after.
- Status
