Silencer?

[MachIVshooter]

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.

Not necessarily. You just won't with supersonic ammo. Any 230 gr .45 ACP load or 147 gr. 9mm will be sub, and with .22 pistols, nearly anything will be subsonic except the hypers.

I also don't pay much more for 158 gr Fiocchi 9mm or American Eagle 45 gr .22 LR than cheap bulk pack stuff. It's well worth it.

 

[AlexanderA]

When considering home defense, the choice of weapon is low on the list of priorities. In fact, if you have to use a weapon, you have, in a sense, already failed. That's always the last option, never the first.

More important are things such as the following:
1. Living a humble lifestyle so that you don't become a target.
2. Choosing your friends (and your children's friends) wisely.
3. Maintaining operational security so that everyone coming to your house is vetted, or at least has limited access.
4. Hardening the perimeter. And hardening the interior.

It's ironic that the only things worth stealing in my house are the guns themselves.

 

[Mike .45]

Silencers are awesome. Yes you should get one. Especially if using a rifle for HD. The new pistol brace rule complicates this a bit as a shorter barrel is ideal when adding a silencer for use in confined areas.

While they aren't cheap they aren't all as super expensive. YHM cans are a great value. I just think of like buying a new gun. It's not that much more than a new gun. Honestly, the wait is far more annoying the the $200 tax stamp.

The worst thing about silencers is shooting with buddies that don't use them!!! LOL.

 

[AlexanderA]

Honestly, the wait is far more annoying the the $200 tax stamp.

That can be said about anything regulated by the NFA. The tax, once meant to be prohibitory, has become a minor consideration, because of inflation. So they're left with sitting on the applications for months and months, as the only meaningful restriction (other than state-level laws). I'm convinced this is intentional. The ATF could streamline the process if it wanted to.

 

[Mike .45]

That can be said about anything regulated by the NFA. The tax, once meant to be prohibitory, has become a minor consideration, because of inflation. So they're left with sitting on the applications for months and months, as the only meaningful restriction (other than state-level laws). I'm convinced this is intentional. The ATF could streamline the process if it wanted to.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[CapnMac]

On the "pro" side:
There's less sound, can be as low as 125-130 dB.
There's reduced (generally) muzzle flash.
There's even some reduction in worries about "over penetration" due to using subsonic ammo.

On the "con" side:
There's the long wait and administrative burdens in acquiring the can.
You are adding length and weight (to varying degrees of either/both) to your weapon.
And, you really need to leave the can mounted up to be useful in an immediate pinch.
(Some of the above makes an excellent argument for an integral suppressor, rather than attached.)

Like any other firearm, you will need to get in your practice time, which means putting rounds through.

Note, too, that, barring going for Welrod or Hushpuppy sorts of solutions, you are still going to be above the 100-110 dB threshold for hearing injury, Confined, indoor, spaces will tend to magnify the effects of sound too.

Which also brings an issue that the goblins pointing their gats your way are unlikely to be suppressed, so, loud gunfire is still likely to be encountered in a confrontation.

Is there a simple answer? Not to my thinking. What it looks like to me is that there's around 290 million individual answers (removing the ±11% of criminals out of the population count). The person living in a big, multistory, apartment complex will have a different calculus than the person living in a farmhouse on a 3200 acre farm, will be different that people living in single-family tract houses, 8 or 10 to the acre (with only 15" between them), wil lbe different than people living in patio home or townhouses.

 

[mavracer]

The ATF could streamline the process if it wanted to.

I have read that part of the problem is inflation and the $200 tax, they can't afford to hire enough examiners.
I also think they know trying to raise the tax is another crapstorm they don't want to open and get the whole NFA overturned because the tax is unconstitutional.

 

[Styx]

I have read that part of the problem is inflation and the $200 tax, they can't afford to hire enough examiners.
I also think they know trying to raise the tax is another crapstorm they don't want to open and get the whole NFA overturned because the tax is unconstitutional.

They can afford to hire examiners if they can afford extra ATF agents for everything else including to knock on law abiding citizens doors to ask them why they purchased X number of firearms all at once and other similar situations.

 

[CapnMac]

Be even easier if we just got silencers removed from NFA, too . . .

 

[AlexanderA]

I have read that part of the problem is inflation and the $200 tax, they can't afford to hire enough examiners.

The $200 tax goes into general revenues. It's not earmarked for the ATF. In other words, the budgeting process for ATF examiners is entirely independent from how much money they raise through the $200 tax.

The real problem is that budgeting for NFA Branch examiners is held hostage to ATF funding as a whole, and Congress tends to resist ATF funding for the well-known political reasons.

 

[mavracer]

They can afford to hire examiners if they can afford extra ATF agents for everything else including to knock on law abiding citizens doors to ask them why they purchased X number of firearms all at once and other similar situations.

Yeah Congress will give them money to harass us, they're not gonna spend it to help us.

 

[Styx]

Yeah Congress will give them money to harass us, they're not gonna spend it to help us.

They have the money and the man power, but they just aren't going to allocate it to processing NFA items.

 

[AlexanderA]

I suspect that the general attitude at the NFA Division, Industry Processing Branch, is Russian-style "Oblomovism" (look up the word). Within the government bureaucracy, what they're doing is a thankless task. Therefore, "they pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." In other words, they're slow-rolling everything. And delay is a feature, not a bug.

 

[Sistema1927]

After going through the process for a Form 4 (suppressor), and a couple of Form 1's ("braced" pistols), the retired systems analyst in me saw at least a half dozen ways that the eforms system could be improved for faster processing. But, as has already ben said, the delay is a feature, and not a bug.

 

[Spats McGee]

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.

Well said. If I ever had to explain my thought processes to my lawyer on why I used a suppressor in an HD/SD situation, this would be a pretty good way to do it.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The $200 tax goes into general revenues. It's not earmarked for the ATF. In other words, the budgeting process for ATF examiners is entirely independent from how much money they raise through the $200 tax.

The real problem is that budgeting for NFA Branch examiners is held hostage to ATF funding as a whole, and Congress tends to resist ATF funding for the well-known political reasons.

Fact. It's the red-headed step child of government agencies, really always has been, but it'll never live down Waco and Ruby Ridge.

They did recently add 20 examiners, bringing the total to 55. And we've been seeing faster processing times, recently had approvals come back for late November filings.

 

[gunny2]

So no ear plugs?

When I'm sleeping? Or messing with when someone has invaded my home? No, none whatsoever.

 

[gunny2]

Therein lies the reason not to use a suppressor -- they're not practical to carry.

In a home defense situation, I won't be "carrying." Realistically, I'll be reaching for it in my nightstand. It would be a simple matter to have it already attached.

 

[gunny2]

You still need permission slips in all 50 states

That's quite a different matter from saying "they're off-limits and are the forbidden fruit."

 

[Styx]

That's quite a different matter from saying "they're off-limits and are the forbidden fruit."

I think most everyone else understood what I ment and was referring to . I'm intelligent enough (that's up for debate sometimes) to know that this thread wouldn't exist if suppressor were litteraly "off-limits," "forbidden," and outright banned.

 

[mavracer]

When I'm sleeping? Or messing with when someone has invaded my home? No, none whatsoever.

Well you effectively moved that bar.
Is there a lot of gunfire when you're sleeping normally? Because that's the subject reductions in noise from gunfire. As for dealing with invaders being able to communicate with loved ones and not having your bell rung by blast are a big plus.
Also there's the advantage of greatly reduced muzzle flash that will jack your dark adjusted vision.

 

[Styx]

Well you effectively moved that bar.
Is there a lot of gunfire when you're sleeping normally? Because that's the subject reductions in noise from gunfire. As for dealing with invaders being able to communicate with loved ones and not having your bell rung by blast are a big plus.
Also there's the advantage of greatly reduced muzzle flash that will jack your dark adjusted vision.

I'd simply would put ear plugs on. I don't feel the need for a suppressor or believe it's an necessity. I also am of the opinion that the whole "going temporarily blind" because of muzzle blast is wayyyyyy overblown.

It's not going to be pitch black, you wouldn't be firing at a potential threat in pitch black darkness, most would turn on the lights, have a bright flash light, or there would be plenty of ambient lighting. I've fired handguns (with and without ports), rifles, and shotguns in low light conditions, and I wasn't blinded.

I have nothing against those who choose to use suppressors; however, IMHO, some are over exaggerating in their attempts to justify their importance.

 

[mavracer]

I'd simply would put ear plugs on.

Yeah that'll help you communicate with loved ones.

I also am of the opinion that the whole "going temporarily blind" because of muzzle blast is wayyyyyy overblown.

I'm sure you believe that.

 

[Styx]

Yeah that'll help you communicate with loved ones.

I'm sure you believe that.

You don't go completely deaf just because you have hearing protection on. I've used hearing protection for years, and I've been able to effectively communicate at a gun range with friends who also had hearing protection on while others were shooting around us. Heck, everyone can even hear the range officer and their commands with hearing protection on. They also sell electric ear protection that only kicks in when while firing. This is what I'm referring to when I say some of you are exaggerating.

I've even worked jobs where hearing protection was mandatory, and I and others were able to communicate. Yes, I see the value in using a suppressor; however, I don't see the point in having to downplay other alternative just to justify your setup.

Another thing, if you're in a gun fight in your home and you don't have hearing protection on, it somewhat defeats the purpose does it not? You'll still hear and will be affected by the sound and blast coming from the criminal's firearm. It's akin to going to an indoor range with a suppressed handgun and no ear protection while everyone else around you are shooting unsuppressed.

 

[FAS1]

A suppressed handgun for home defense is getting pretty common in the states where they are allowed.