# Silencers,good idea or a bad one



## readytogo

Florida poised to let hunters use silencers.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-florida-gun-silencers-for-hunters-20141115-story.html
:scratch


----------



## LincTex

readytogo said:


> Florida poised to let hunters use silencers.


You have to be a subscriber to access that article.

Besides, it's a good idea and we should be allowed to use them in all 50 states, without any restrictions, fees, taxes, or licenses at all!


----------



## cowboyhermit

The way we have treated suppressors in North America is ridiculous. Hearing damage alone is a good enough reason, how many people put earplugs in before they pull the trigger on a big buck?


----------



## mosquitomountainman

Why should it be illegal for hunters to use silencers in the first place?


----------



## Marcus

From what I understand, it's considered bad form in Europe NOT to use suppressors when hunting.


----------



## airdrop

In Briton you can make your own and then you don't disturb your neighbors shooting your pellet gun , it's nut how we make things evil in this country . No restrictions please


----------



## crabapple

IMHO, they-them/men in black fear the everyday man with a gun/rifle.
Letting us have a way to kill from a hiding place is bad enough!!!!!!!!!!
But to let us do it with out a sound, no way.
Think about it, mass shooting in a park, no one heard a thing, only notice that some people plumped or fell down.

Who knows we might get together & over throw the bad government, it happen 200 year ago, it could happen again.


----------



## Sentry18

Like many things in the world of firearms, ignorance has far surpassed reality. Suppressors are not actually silent but the laws against them are based on the ignorance that you could shoot someone without report. Apparently the government wants you to kill people with loud noise so someone dials 911. They are afraid of silent murders; you know like stabbing people, poison, strangulation, blunt objects, etc., etc., etc.

By the way while suppressors may be currently illegal for hunting in Florida, they are not illegal in general. They are merely restricted. If you have $200 and 6-12 months you too can own a suppressor. I know I do. 

Also even with a suppressor you should be using some type of hearing protection.


----------



## HardCider

Suppressors are no different than a concealed carry permit in my area. Pay your money, fill out the forms and wait for the paperwork to clear. You can already use night sights and infra red scopes in my state for game you can legally hunt at night. Don't think you can hunt with a suppressor though. I'll have to check


----------



## cnsper

You don't need a silencer, you just need to be far enough away. Howitzer or 50 cal anyone?


----------



## ras1219como

As a nation we tend to over react. Something bad happens and instead of being reasonable we ban or restrict everything and take a far swing in the opposite direction. 

This reaction is why surpressors are restricted. IMO you should be able to purchase any firearm with any accessory without restriction. Instead you just have to pay 200 bucks for a tax stamp and wait. 

And as far as the people who say why does anyone need a suppressor...do I need a reason? Other than it's fun and I want one!


Sent from my iPhone using Survival Forum. Please forgive typos.


----------



## backlash

As a guy with severe hearing loss and tinnitus in both ears I think suppressors should be allowed.
Washington state finally allowed them to be used.
The state law was really screwed up.
You could own one but you were not allowed to use it.
I have been thinking about jumping through the hoops and getting one.
Maybe one for a .22.


----------



## Sentry18

Here is some data comparing suppressed firearms to non suppressed in relation to the decibels produced. Hearing loss or damage can occur at sounds above 85 decibels, but obviously the louder it gets the higher the risk. Suppressors create about a 30-40 db reduction. Enough to help protect us from the sound, but not enough to bring about the complete collapse of society as we know it.



> Results
> The average unsuppressed sound levels for the 9 mm pistol
> at military standard recording distance (1 m to the left of
> the muzzle) was 160.5 dB and 157.7 dB at the ear of
> the shooter. The average suppressed levels were 127.4 dB
> and 129.6 dB, respectively (difference of 33.1 dB and
> 28.1 dB).
> 
> The average unsuppressed sound levels for the 45 ACP
> pistol at military standard recording distance and the shoo-
> ter's ear was 162.5 dB. The average suppressed levels were
> 131.8 dB and 128.5 dB, respectively (difference of 30.7 dB
> and 33.9 dB, respectively). The suppressor for the 45 ACP
> is also designed to function wet (filled with 10 mL of water
> for additional noise reduction). The average wet suppressed
> level was 121 dB (difference of 41.5 dB).
> 
> The average unsuppressed sound levels for the 5.56 mm/
> 223 caliber semiautomatic rifle at the military standard
> recording distance was 164 dB and 155 dB at the shooter's
> ear. The average suppressed levels were 137.4 dB and 134.2
> dB, respectively (difference of 26.6 dB and 29.8 dB,
> respectively).
> 
> The average unsuppressed sound levels for the bolt-
> action 7.62x51 mm/308 caliber rifle at the military stan-
> dard recording distance was 165.7 dB and 157.2 dB at the
> ear. The average suppressed sound levels were 138.9 dB
> and 131.2 dB, respectively (difference of 26.8 dB and 26
> dB, respectively).


http://www.qsmsilencers.com/Dr. Matt Branch AAOHNS Article.pdf


----------



## mosquitomountainman

I've gotten to the point of using air rifles for small game hunting most of the time anyway. Lots of other good points to them in addition to the low noise levels.


----------



## LincTex

Sentry18 said:


> The average suppressed levels were 127.4 dB and 129.6 dB,
> The average suppressed levels were131.8 dB and 128.5 dB,
> The average suppressed levels were 137.4 dB and 134.2 dB,
> The average suppressed sound levels were 138.9 dB and 131.2 dB,


Those are all still very loud. 
Muzzle sound matters little whether the ammo is supersonic or subsonic, apparently.


----------



## cowboyhermit

LincTex said:


> Those are all still very loud.
> Muzzle sound matters little whether the ammo is supersonic or subsonic, apparently.


Of course decibels are logarithmic, *not linear*, so a change of 10dB is a change by a factor of 10, which has always made my head hurt (antenna and other "gain" :scratch)

In the same caliber, subsonic rounds should be somewhere around 10dB quieter (heavy bullet type not underpowered ones).

They really change the way the sound hits you though, different frequency and the perceived sound is much different. Just like with the subsonic rounds, the lack of the tell-tale "crack" of the sonic boom is much more noticeable with a suppressed gun.


----------



## PurpleHeartJarhead

Sentry18 said:


> http://www.qsmsilencers.com/Dr.%20Matt%20Branch%20AAOHNS%20Article.pdf


I'm not a black helicopter guy...but sometimes I wonder how much disinformation is really out there in order to discourage the average Joe.

I remember being on the range in '98 as a student in the USMC's *S*kills for *L*eaders in *A*dvanced *M*arksmanship (SLAM) Course with 2d Force Recon shooters right next to me. They were using H&K MP5's in 9MM with silencers. The action cycling in the weapon made more noise than what came from the muzzle, though the two were quite distinguishable when one listened.

Just my experience. Not discounting anyone else's.


----------



## Marcus

The 9mm MP5SD was designed to use supersonic 9mm ammo. However, the bullets leave the suppressor at sub-sonic speeds so there is no sonic boom. Additionally, it operates with a closed bolt (roller-delayed blowback) which helps with sound reduction.

I did have a friend back in the early 80s who owned an Ingram MAC 10 (45 ACP which is sub-sonic) that was fully auto and supressed. He too said that the bolt cycling made more noise than anything else.


----------



## cowboyhermit

PurpleHeartJarhead said:


> I'm not a black helicopter guy...but sometimes I wonder how much disinformation is really out there in order to discourage the average Joe.
> ...


I think the information provided was sound o). No, those aren't the best numbers achievable but if you look into it I doubt you will find any firearms much below those levels, including the MP5. Sound meters are pretty common and there are many examples of people measuring these things, in many countries.

If it seems like disinformation I really believe it is due to the nature of sound levels and decibels in particular. Most sound level comparisons are with constant noises, not short duration ones and also distance plays a *huge* factor.

Just for example, clapping your hands hard at 3ft away is about *130dB*, @ 1.5ft it is up to 136dB, a few inches from the ear it is up to *150dB*.

Another thing that might be useful is to mention that airsoft guns are *over* 100dB typically, often by a large margin. In other words many suppressed guns will be quieter than many airsoft.


----------



## Sentry18

I have a suppressor for my M&P 9mm as well as one for an AR15. While they are noticeably quieter than shooting an identical unsuppressed firearm, they are not even close to silent. A friend of mine also has a Mac10 (although I think it say clone) with a suppressor that sounds like a full out staple gun when you shoot it (clack clack clack). One difference is that neither of my suppressors are the size of a 2L bottle of Coke Zero, his is. On all suppressed guns there is a difference in noise if you're standing next to the firearm or if you're standing on the wrong end of the muzzle.


----------



## Sentry18




----------



## weedygarden

readytogo said:


> Florida poised to let hunters use silencers.
> http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-florida-gun-silencers-for-hunters-20141115-story.html
> :scratch


I sure wish you had copied and pasted the article so we could read it. It is not available without paying for a subscription, which I am not going to buy!


----------



## BillM

*Supressors*

The tactical purpose of supressing gunfire is to allow comunication between cooperating officers or team members in a gunfight.

The first round from my service weapon would leave my ears ringing for five miniuts . You could not hear the radio or your pardner.

The enemy knows you are shooting at him , they are not silent just supressed.


----------



## badman400

It is my understanding that certain movie assassins used "silencers" and so it was made to look "evil" and this helped our nanny state sell the idea that they were protecting us from something bad, while actually taking more freedom away. 

Is this true? Not sure, but it doesn't sound too far fetched in view of some of the other "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws.


----------



## backlash

*Florida may allow hunters to use silencers*

August 6, 2014|By David Fleshler, Sun Sentinel

Hunters of deer, turkey and other animals in Florida may soon be able to operate with lethal stealth under a state proposal to allow them to use silencers.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission will consider a proposal at its Sept. 10 meeting in Kissimmee to permit silencers, also known as suppressors, for shooting deer, turkey, gray squirrels, rabbits, quail and crows.

They don't quite muffle shots down to the sinister pop heard in the movies. But supporters say they can protect hunters' hearing, reduce a rifle's recoil and allow hunters to operate near residential areas without bothering people.

"It basically will take a high-powered rifle and make it sound like a .22," said Tony Young, spokesman for the wildlife commission. "It still makes a sound, but it's at a lower decibel level. Maybe they're hunting close to some houses and maybe they want to be quiet for their neighbors. Maybe if they're quiet when they shoot, it will scare the game less. We're just trying to give people the opportunity to be able to buy one and use one if they choose. We don't see enough negatives to not allow them."

Opponents say silencers will make it easier for poachers to operate and threaten public safety by reducing the noise that alerts people to the presence of hunters.

"You don't want to have shooting in the area and not hear a thing," said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "The report of a firearm is how you know if a hunter is nearby."

He dismissed the arguments in favor of silencers, saying the firearms industry was making a nationwide push to loosen silencer laws to generate more sales.

"They have saturated the market and they are looking for new things to sell existing owners," he said. "This is about an industry trying to sell people more toys without any regard for public safety."

The possession of silencers is controlled under the National Firearms Act, a 1934 law passed in the wake of Prohibition-era violence, restricting ownership of machine guns, sawed-off shotguns and other weapons. To acquire a silencer, a buyer must pass a federal background check and pay $200.

Despite being legal at the federal level, 10 states ban them and eight states, including Florida, don't allow them for hunting under most circumstances.

The American Suppressor Association, which represents manufacturers, has been working successfully to lift state restrictions, announcing on its web page recent victories in Louisiana, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky and Arizona.

"Hunters are very interested in them," said Knox Williams, president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association. "Especially young hunters and new hunters," who he said are more open to new technologies.

Although he said he has been in contact with the state wildlife commission, he said the Florida proposal did not originate with his organization.

Wildlife commission spokesman Young said the proposal came from Florida hunters and landowners, not the manufacturers association. He said current law already permits the use of silencers in hunting certain species, depending on the type of land involved, including wild hogs, raccoons, coyote, beaver, skunk, nutria and otter.

Newton Cook, a hunter and executive director of United Waterfowlers of Florida, said he opposes the use of silencers, except possibly near residential areas where they might make it easier to hunt without generating complaints.

Otherwise, he said, silencers might make it easier for hunters to kill more than the legal limit in deer or turkey traveling in groups or make it easier for poachers.

"I have a real problem with silencers except in situations where the noise of gunshots might make a difference in hunting access," he said.

Silencer supporters see no risk of increased poaching, since poachers could already use the devices if they're inclined to operate illegally.

"If they break one law, what's going to stop them from breaking another?" asked Marion Hammer, Tallahassee lobbyist for the National Rifle Association.

Although she said the devices would appeal to those seeking to protect hearing or avoid scattering wildlife with the first shot, she said the cost and procedural hassles will deter many people.

"You have to pay the transfer tax, go through background checks," she said. "This is not going to be something that everybody and anybody is going to want to do."

The proposal before the wildlife commission is a draft. It will receive preliminary consideration at the September meeting, and if given a green light, go for final approval at a later meeting. The public will have a chance to speak at each meeting.


----------



## Sentry18

> "You don't want to have shooting in the area and not hear a thing," said Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "The report of a firearm is how you know if a hunter is nearby."
> 
> He dismissed the arguments in favor of silencers, saying the firearms industry was making a nationwide push to loosen silencer laws to generate more sales.
> 
> "They have saturated the market and they are looking for new things to sell existing owners," he said. "This is about an industry trying to sell people more toys without any regard for public safety."


"Ladd Everitt could not find his butt hole with two hands, a flashlight and a partner." said Sentry18, a spokesman for the coalition to stop the highly ignorant from breeding.


----------



## LincTex

Sentry18 said:


> "Ladd Everitt could not find his butt hole with two hands, a flashlight and a partner." said Sentry18, a spokesman for the coalition to stop the highly ignorant from breeding.


Hahahaha!

Apparently, Ladd Everitt & friends (while hunting) just "pop off" a round here, and a round there every so often..... 
.
.
.
.
*just* so people will know he's in the area "hunting".

:brickwall:



:facepalm:


----------



## BobR1

I spend lots of time on a gun range. We have several Hi-Power rifle shooters competing in our Tactical Rifle, Multi Range F Class, and Tactical Steel match's who shoot with suppressors. Taking away 90% of the muzzle blast makes a huge difference in the noise generated during a match. While not silent, the reduction in noise is a very good thing for keeping the noise level of a match down.
I would like to see every one of our Hi Power shooters using one just for the noise reduction on the range. 

As was said above, the restrictions on suppressors was a Knee Jerk reaction after the St Valentines Day Massacre where suppressors were not used at all in the mass killing. 
Another case of laws being created by people who don't have a clue. 

Bob


----------



## Jimthewagontraveler

I believe they should be made illegal for people who have been repeatedly convicted of silently murdering multiple underage orphans.


----------



## Magus

I wish I'd had one the day a headset malfunctioned while shooting my 300 WM prone, my nickname was "HUH" for years..


----------



## PopPop

Hoplophobes have to change their shorts at the mere mention of a "silencer".
You should be able to buy them at Walmart with the same difficulty as buying a hammer.


----------



## BillM

*The advantage*

The advantage of having a handgun that is loud.

Years ago, we bought a small country store on the main hwy.

I carried a 38 special snub-nosed chiefs special.

The advantage was that it was easy to conceal, loaded with +P frangible ammo and was extremely loud with a large muzzle flash.

The basis for carrying this particular weapon was protection against a holdup.

I would have given the holdup man the money and let him go but wanted the option of lethal force if that was not going to satisfy him.

Holdup men do not search you and I could conceal it easily.

Frangible ammo lessened the chance of hitting a bi-stander.

The loud report and the muzzle flash has the tendency to put every one else to flight, including accomplices.

Any time you choose a weapon, it should meet the criteria for the most likely scenario you will be faced with.


----------



## HamiltonFelix

Suppressors are expensive, put you on even more lists, but they are now possible to own in my state. I have hearing loss from noise (40 years a Hydroelectric Operator) and would like to be able to shoot quietly.

When TSHTF it might be important to be able shoot quietly. (Is it too late to buy a bow and learn archery?) 

It's getting harder to find places to shoot and not attract attention. Reduced sound would help a lot.

We have a list of priorities, but if we can afford it, a couple of suppressors would be a good thing.


----------



## LincTex

HamiltonFelix said:


> Suppressors are expensive, ... When TSHTF it might be important to be able shoot quietly.... We have a list of priorities, but if we can afford it, a couple of suppressors would be a good thing.


The device itself is NOT illegal to own, build, etc. without the tax stamp...

UNTIL you attach it to the weapon of your choice.

That's how folks are getting away with selling *"solvent traps"* on eBay for $20. Because it is NOT a silencer until you are actually shooting through it. Until that happens, it's just a baffled metal tube.


----------



## TheLazyL

mike_dippert said:


> Then...
> ...why the fuss with paperwork when buying them (pay an FFL for the device, submit paperwork and $200 to BATFE, then leave your new suppressor at the FFL for months until BATFE approves your paperwork?
> If it's not a NFA item when detached, shouldn't you be able to buy one whenever and worry about the paperwork later?
> 
> ...why the fuss about registering a suppressor using a trust so your family isn't breaking federal law by touching it (separated from a firearm) when you (the registered owner) aren't present (or dead)?
> 
> I haven't purchased a suppressor (or 3) yet b/c of those two things. The trust isn't a big deal, but I'm not going to part with hundreds or thousands of dollars for something I won't be able to bring home for months.


Let's say you live within the city limits. City has an ordinance against keeping a horse within the city. You want to keep your horse so you tie a plastic horn on the snout of your horse and call it a Unicorn. Perfectly legal right? How far do you think that will fly with the government officials?

An adapter that threads on a firearm barrel that permits you attached a filter can be called by some a solvent trap. Filters the gallons of solvent you poured down the barrel, filters and reclaims the solvent. Perfectly legal right? How far do you think that will fly with the government officials?


----------



## labotomi

The difference is one is a device designed to reduce the noise of a firearm so it needs a tax Stamp. The other is a device designed for another purpose **cough, cough**, which isn't illegal... Until you attach it to a firearm since doing so would it's noise.


----------



## zombieresponder

LincTex said:


> The device itself is NOT illegal to own, build, etc. without the tax stamp...
> 
> UNTIL you attach it to the weapon of your choice.
> 
> That's how folks are getting away with selling *"solvent traps"* on eBay for $20. Because it is NOT a silencer until you are actually shooting through it. Until that happens, it's just a baffled metal tube.


This is false and BATFE will be more than happy to fine you or put you in jail for possession of an unregistered suppressor. Even individual parts are defined as a suppressor and carry the same penalty as a complete device. Actually, they would probably charge you with multiple counts of illegal possession.

http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-silencer.html

Read that definition carefully.


----------



## Marcus

zombieresponder said:


> This is false and BATFE will be more than happy to fine you or put you in jail for possession of an unregistered suppressor. Even individual parts are defined as a suppressor and carry the same penalty as a complete device.


It actually depends on the parts in your possession.

A threaded barrel is not illegal since it could be for a flash hider or muzzle compensator.
A piece of metal tubing of the appropriate length is not illegal.
Washers are not illegal.
All thread rods are not illegal.
Nuts for the all thread rods are not illegal.

But once you have machined threads on the tube and have machined end caps to fit the tubing & barrel threads and have drilled the washers for the all thread, you have crossed the line. Even the possession of steel wool at that point might be considered a suppressor part.

A person would be wise to remember the past conduct of the BATFE especially in regards to the use of reduced charged ammo in cases involving supposedly illegal machine guns.


----------



## Balls004

I don't believe that it is a bad idea to use silencers for hunting or shooting sports. I use a suppressed 10/22 to hunt squirrel and can sit under one tree and shoot several squirrels without them ever being alarmed and it doesn't damage what little hearing I have left.

Until people who are under the impression that suppressors completely silence a firearm are educated that it just isn't so, they probably will continue to believe that they are an inherently "evil" addition to any weapon. 

But hey, they're legalizing pot, and I didn't ever think that would happen, so maybe there is hope for silencers someday.


----------



## zombieresponder

BATFE used to run sting operations by advertising drop in autosears in various publications. They've also done more than just using improper ammunition.


----------



## labotomi

zombieresponder said:


> BATFE used to run sting operations by advertising drop in autosears in various publications. They've also done more than just using improper ammunition.


That's entrapment.


----------



## zombieresponder

Yep, but they did it. Not any different than the several people who's firearms they've tampered with until they were illegal machineguns.


----------



## labotomi

zombieresponder said:


> Yep, but they did it. Not any different than the several people who's firearms they've tampered with until they were illegal machineguns.


It's very different to entice someone who may not, before seeing the advertisement, been likely to break that law rather than someone who obviously set out to tamper with the gun with that intent in mind.


----------



## zombieresponder

You misunderstand. BATFE tampered with the firearms.


----------



## labotomi

zombieresponder said:


> You misunderstand. BATFE tampered with the firearms.


Oh. Gotcha. Don't know what happened with that stuff.


----------



## ras1219como

labotomi said:


> That's entrapment.


Labotomi it is not entrapment. Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or someone acting as an agent of law enforcement entices someone into doing something they would not otherwise do. True cases of entrapment are rare and most people don't understand the concept of entrapment.


----------



## labotomi

ras1219como said:


> Labotomi it is not entrapment. Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer or someone acting as an agent of law enforcement entices someone into doing something they would not otherwise do. True cases of entrapment are rare and most people don't understand the concept of entrapment.


I think I understand the concept. There are several distinct entrapment types. If this doesn't fit one of them it certainly just skirts the criteria. 
I would say that any law enforcement agency putting out an ad selling these drop in auto sears would "entice" several people who would not have broken the full-out laws to purchase them.

There are plenty of entrapment cases, just fewer at the state and federal level as they are more apt to have their bases well covered.


----------



## zilte

with subsonic ammo and a locked breech, the .22lr can be made every bit as quiet as a BB gun. You can hear the firing pin hit the rd, and you can hear the bullet pass thru a paper target at 50 yds, too. Anyone who tells you differently has never heard what a good suppressor actually can do. Getting that level of suppression is close to pointless, and it takes a can that's twice as big as normal for a .22, but it can be done.


----------



## zombieresponder

I have been on ranges with commercially purchased cans that were almost that quiet with standard supersonic ammo. It doesn't require an exceptionally large can, just one with a good baffling system.

I'd already have multiple commercial cans, but the local NFA dealer doesn't seem too concerned about selling anything. I could build my own(machinist by trade), but after spending 8+ hours a day on the job I'm just not too hopped up on spending any extra time there.


----------



## zilte

If you go at it right, a fine can for a hi-v rifle takes about 4 hours to make. A can for a .22 takes me just one hour, but it takes several hours to make the tools that i need to counterbore the barrel and make the baffles. the hi v rifle can likewise needs the baffle forming tool, but not the brass piloted tap drill(used for mounting the .22 can).

what many don't understand is that you dont benefit from having the ID hole be a "tighter" tolerance (around the bullet) with hi v rifles, the way you DO benefit from such with a 22 suppressor. Still, it's best to use a boring bar to make the hole in your rear adapter pc, after welding that pc into the tubing, and checking for warpage or lack of roundness in the tube. Just drilling and threading (in the lathe) is not precise enough for proper alignment, unless you get lucky. I bore a .30 cal hole thru my 223 baffles. I've tried to use 7mm and sometimes I got baffle strikes.


----------



## zilte

Like all other things, you run into the "law of diminishing returns". It's far easier/cheaper to make the canned gun quieter by merely increasing can size, and improving baffling can only go just so far. the trick with suppression is letting the gases expand/cool, while still retaining them inside of your "can", for the micro-second needed to have them have less "shock effect" when they are finally released into the atmosphere. The less violent the shock waves created by the gases, the more minor will be the vibrations felt by your ear-parts.


----------



## Balls004

Did zilte set some kind of record for getting excommunicated here?


----------



## cowboyhermit

Balls004 said:


> Did zilte set some kind of record for getting excommunicated here?


You would think, but unfortunately I don't believe so. Doesn't happen often but I do recall a few blatant trolls and of course spammers, as opposed to the *"I am the Supreme Master of all knowledge, Hear me and Obey!"* people who have trouble playing nice, and sometimes come back with different usernames.

Looked like they had some decent knowledge, sometimes people go overboard on first joining and settle down later, it is good to see new posters sharing their opinions and knowledge in a constructive way.


----------



## billybob

My next door neighbor has a machine shop and is federally licensed to manufacture suppressors. He has been manufacturing suppressors for a number of years and I have seen quite a few of his. My personal opinion in looking at suppressors is that the ammo has more to do with the "quietness" than anything. If you can keep your ammo at 900fps or less you will not have the supersonic crack. I know my brother and his compadres hunt rabbits and squirrels with the cci .22lr subsonic ammo and it is very quiet. A suppressor will knock down the sound level at most about 25%-35% which still will not have a significant effect on the crack of the projectile breaking the sound barrier. If you want to have less noise your best option is the ammo. Suppressors typically run in the hundreds or thousands of dollars, and require federal licensing as well.


----------



## BF1911

I have a suppressor that I run on an SBR. It makes the weapon more comfortable for everyone else around it. I put a Noveske 'flaming pig' flash suppressor on it before I had the Gemtech. The guys said it the pig helped as well.


----------



## LincTex

billybob said:


> ...hunt rabbits and squirrels with the cci .22lr subsonic ammo and it is very quiet. A suppressor will knock down the sound level at most about 25%-35% which still will not have a significant effect on the crack of the projectile breaking the sound barrier. If you want to have less noise your best option is the ammo..


This stuff is the BOMB when taking care of "backyard predators" and not pissing the neighbors off! (smells funny, though...)

Aguila SSS .22 - long bullet, short case


----------



## cowboyhermit

LincTex said:


> This stuff is the BOMB when taking care of "backyard predators" and not pissing the neighbors off! (smells funny, though...)
> 
> Aguila SSS .22 - long bullet, short case


Damn straight! I just wish there were more options for heavy grain subsonic, as opposed to the lighter powder loads. The only problem is that there are pretty much no off the shelf rifles with the right twist to stabilize that size of bullet bullet properly, they work in most, but not as well as they should.


----------



## LincTex

cowboyhermit said:


> The only problem is that there are pretty much no off the shelf rifles with the right twist to stabilize that size of bullet bullet properly, they work in most, but not as well as they should.


Some people report keyholing problems when punching holes in paper... 
I've never actually done any target practice with them.

My kill rate using them on critters 25-30lbs and under has been 100%.

I agree - - I wish other ammo manufacturers would offer similar loads.


----------



## Balls004

LincTex said:


> Some people report keyholing problems when punching holes in paper...
> I've never actually done any target practice with them.
> 
> My kill rate using them on critters 25-30lbs and under has been 100%.
> 
> I agree - - I wish other ammo manufacturers would offer similar loads.


It seems like several companies have come out with sub-sonic .22's the past couple of years. I used to shoot exclusively the Remington sub-sonics, but since the great vanishing of .22's after Sandy Hook, I started buying whatever sub-sonics were available. Gemtech, Winchester, and CCI now populate my gun vault since I've not seen *any* of the Remingtons since.

It's been pretty educational though, to hear how much difference there is in perceived noise level there is between the different mfgr's, which you might think would all be relatively close. I knew it would be different between the rifles and pistols, but did not expect the very noticable difference bewtween brands of ammo.


----------



## cowboyhermit

LincTex said:


> Some people report keyholing problems when punching holes in paper...
> I've never actually done any target practice with them.
> 
> My kill rate using them on critters 25-30lbs and under has been 100%.
> 
> I agree - - I wish other ammo manufacturers would offer similar loads.


The accuracy is decent, it seems to vary a lot from gun to gun for me, compared to other rounds. For dispatching animals, or hunting at typical .22 ranges they are good, imho. I like to push things a bit and while that hefty little bullet still packs enough energy and ballistics aren't too bad, at the ranges I shoot good .22 these ones are a bit inaccurate in most guns which is a shame. I am certain a portion of the inaccuracy is from the ammo itself though.



Balls004 said:


> It seems like several companies have come out with sub-sonic .22's the past couple of years. I used to shoot exclusively the Remington sub-sonics, but since the great vanishing of .22's after Sandy Hook, I started buying whatever sub-sonics were available. Gemtech, Winchester, and CCI now populate my gun vault since I've not seen *any* of the Remingtons since.
> 
> It's been pretty educational though, to hear how much difference there is in perceived noise level there is between the different mfgr's, which you might think would all be relatively close. I knew it would be different between the rifles and pistols, but did not expect the very noticable difference bewtween brands of ammo.


Yeah, but are there other "full powered" subsonic loads? I actually am not sure because I haven't looked into it in awhile and am not in the U.S where you might have better selection. Pretty much all the subsonics I found before were reduced powder, or even primer only. I like the heavier bullet method better (though they will not be quite as quiet obviously) for several reasons, _theoretically_ they; cycle better in semis, have good ballistics, and actually pack a decent punch.


----------



## LincTex

Balls004 said:


> I started buying whatever sub-sonics were available. Gemtech, Winchester, and CCI now populate my gun vault since I've not seen *any* of the Remingtons since.


I've got about 15-20 boxes. It was all that was available to buy for a long time.


----------



## LincTex

cowboyhermit said:


> Yeah, but are there other "full powered" subsonic loads? Pretty much all the subsonics I found before were reduced powder, or even primer only.


Most subsonics chrono at about 100-200 fps less than normal rounds. 
It's about all that's need to become "subsonic".

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=360663

Primer only = CB caps. 
I'll use an air rifle instead!!

.
.


----------



## Balls004

Every sub-sonic .22 I've used has reliably cycled in a Rem 597, M&P22 pistol and a 10/22. One time just playing around I tried some Remington subs in my AR with a CMMG conversion bolt. I didn't expect it to work, but it did sometimes. Mostly it didn't though.


----------



## labotomi

Balls004 said:


> Every sub-sonic .22 I've used has reliably cycled in a Rem 597, M&P22 pistol and a 10/22. One time just playing around I tried some Remington subs in my AR with a CMMG conversion bolt. I didn't expect it to work, but it did sometimes. Mostly it didn't though.


I have a Winchester 190 that will cycle with subsonic ammo most of the time but thats all. It won't correctly operate my Ruger Mark II & 22/45, S&W15-22, or Sig 1911-22.

There's a lot of brands I haven't tried though I'm skeptical that I'd find one that would operate all of them reliably. The good news is that every brand has been 100‰ reliable in both my single shot and bolt actions.


----------



## LongRider

LincTex said:


> You have to be a subscriber to access that article.
> 
> Besides, it's a good idea and *we should be allowed to use them in all 50 states, without any restrictions, fees, taxes, or licenses at all!*


Now that is worth repeating


----------



## bfastnate

It pretty easy to make a home mafe suppressor


----------



## Caribou

bfastnate said:


> It pretty easy to make a home mafe suppressor


Making a suppressor is easy enough. In certain countries it will land you in jail. That tends to hold many people back.


----------



## bfastnate

It illegal to posses ir make weapons or attachment in mines dont stop people big time black market


----------



## kinda

A proper can on the M4 makes full power 223's sound like a normal .22lr rifle, and it makes subsonic .22 rimfire sound like a BB Gun, when fired thru the 22 converison unit. Sonic crack is non-directional, and it's easily blotted out by highway noise (especially 18 wheelers) or a high wind. If you are indoors , windows and doors shut (as is almost always the case) and such a gun/load are fired outside, 100 yds away, you are unlikely to hear it. hear Whereas you'll hear subsonic 22's (no can being used) from 1/4 mile away. In the open, you can hear sonic crack about 1/2 mile, on flat, open terrain, maybe a bit more in cold weather, and a bit more over water. You wont hear the suppressed subsonic loads at 50 yds, on a cold, quiet night. On a hot, humid day, in woods, you won't hear them at 50 ft, if the action is not allowed to cycle.


----------



## Balls004

kinda said:


> A proper can on the M4 makes full power 223's sound like a normal .22lr rifle, and it makes subsonic .22 rimfire sound like a BB Gun, when fired thru the 22 converison unit. Sonic crack is non-directional, and it's easily blotted out by highway noise (especially 18 wheelers) or a high wind. If you are indoors , windows and doors shut (as is almost always the case) and such a gun/load are fired outside, 100 yds away, you are unlikely to hear it. hear Whereas you'll hear subsonic 22's (no can being used) from 1/4 mile away. In the open, you can hear sonic crack about 1/2 mile, on flat, open terrain, maybe a bit more in cold weather, and a bit more over water. You wont hear the suppressed subsonic loads at 50 yds, on a cold, quiet night. On a hot, humid day, in woods, you won't hear them at 50 ft, if the action is not allowed to cycle.


Not to argue with you, but just which can are you basing this on? None of my cans are anywhere near as quiet as what you describe. As a matter of fact, no silencer I've seen comes anywhere close. The quietest I've got is a .300 blackout Handi-rifle with a MysticX can. My wife can still hear it from 1/4 mile or so through the woods, even with subs.


----------



## Uriel

Marcus said:


> From what I understand, it's considered bad form in Europe NOT to use suppressors when hunting.


Don't know about bad form but they are very common. Personally I think they are a good thing. I found the article pretty interesting. The arguments against suppressed rifles did not make any sense to me and seemed to be based on ignorance and fear mongering. We have plenty of the that in the U.K where firearms are concerned but the antis don't seem to bother focussing on suppressors, they just want to ban firearms full stop. Sadly most of those who petition against firearms in this country have never even met anyone who owns one. In my experience firearms owners are some of the most responsible and reliable characters likely to be encountered. I guess all you can do is try to set an example and educate those who are maybe a bit naive to the facts. What was the upshot of the story btw? Did the state legalize suppressors?


----------



## Resto

I think this is about money on both sides of the Issue. Personally, I think they are a waste of money. Mainly because they are way over Rated and way over priced. Do I think they should be Regulated(Taxed)? No. That's all it is, its another excuse to Tax. On the other side of the Issue, I think its about Sales and Profits. Theres no way that anyone can convince me that a suppressor should cost 1000 dollars when Ive seen an attachment that sells for 25 Bucs and adapts a 6 dollar Automobile Oil Filter to a Barrel and is quieter that a 1000 dollar can with a Kool name. Its all Horse Poop.


----------



## Uriel

Resto said:


> I think this is about money on both sides of the Issue. Personally, I think they are a waste of money. Mainly because they are way over Rated and way over priced. Do I think they should be Regulated(Taxed)? No. That's all it is, its another excuse to Tax. On the other side of the Issue, I think its about Sales and Profits. Theres no way that anyone can convince me that a suppressor should cost 1000 dollars when Ive seen an attachment that sells for 25 Bucs and adapts a 6 dollar Automobile Oil Filter to a Barrel and is quieter that a 1000 dollar can with a Kool name. Its all Horse Poop.


I'm quite surprised they are that expensive to buy over there. I picked up a Reflex T8 for my .308 over here for approx $285 in US money and i thought that was expensive for what it actually is. There is no doubt the manufacturers would like to make big profits on what they see as an under exploited aspect of the market. In the shooting world everything has gotten very glossy it seems from the rifles themselves to the clothing that people wear. Like everything else the advertisers try very hard to convince us that our lives will be better if we buy that $600 hunting jacket or have an expensive rifle to shoot deer that we could probably shoot almost as easily with a black powder rifle. I don't like to spend money if I don't have to but I already suffer hearing loss in one ear so I am all for using a suppressor. I also try to wear ear defenders whenever possible. Other people I know don't bother with them. Each to their own I say!


----------



## Resto

Uriel said:


> I'm quite surprised they are that expensive to buy over there. I picked up a Reflex T8 for my .308 over here for approx $285 in US money and i thought that was expensive for what it actually is. There is no doubt the manufacturers would like to make big profits on what they see as an under exploited aspect of the market. In the shooting world everything has gotten very glossy it seems from the rifles themselves to the clothing that people wear. Like everything else the advertisers try very hard to convince us that our lives will be better if we buy that $600 hunting jacket or have an expensive rifle to shoot deer that we could probably shoot almost as easily with a black powder rifle. I don't like to spend money if I don't have to but I already suffer hearing loss in one ear so I am all for using a suppressor. I also try to wear ear defenders whenever possible. Other people I know don't bother with them. Each to their own I say!


Yup they are that expensive here.


----------



## Uriel

This is a bit of an afterthought but I also have a suppressor for my .22lr and with subsonic ammo I can vouch that this one is very quiet. Other than the click of the firing pin all you hear is the thwack of the bullet hitting the target. If anyone is interested I will try to put a video up.


----------

