Not just for hitmen: Gun industry wants looser rules on silencers

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

World | Tue Mar 8, 2016 12:51pm EST

Not just for hitmen: Gun industry wants looser rules on silencers

FAIRFAX, VA. | BY ANDY SULLIVAN

The U.S. gun industry is trying to shake off the Hollywood hitman image of the gun silencer and rebrand it as a hearing-protection device in a campaign to roll back regulations that date to the 1930s.

Industry lobbying has led to more than a dozen states legalizing silencers for hunting since 2011. Now gun advocates are pressing Congress to repeal a Depression-era law that requires a months-long screening process for silencer buyers - far more scrutiny than gun buyers face.

Sales of silencers - or "suppressors," as the industry prefers to call them - are booming. The number of silencers registered with the U.S. government more than doubled to 792,282 in February 2015 from 360,534 in March 2012, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Despite their name, silencers can only quiet a gunshot to the level of a jackhammer - not much use for James Bond-style hit jobs.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-silencers-idUSKCN0WA19E

[PoliticAverse]

1. Another issue where common depiction in movies and tv shows gives the public a false impression.

[lark]

2. So reality isn't what's shown in movies.

I get that. I still don't think we should make it easier to buy these. Hunters can wear noise cancelling headphones instead of buying a silencer. Anything that makes it easier to kill people and get away with it should require an investigation prior to the sale.

[gejohnston]

7. The proposed federal law would move them from NFA

and be regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act. They don't make anything easy. If that were the case, gang bangers would be taping two liter soda bottles to their gun barrels. In Australia, you can't have a two liter bottle and your gun together. In New Zealand, UK, France, Norway, and Finland you just buy it like a fountain pen.
BTW, the German state of Bavaria legalized silencers for hunting the same week Kansas did. Some hunting areas in Finland, they are required. The are common in France especially at gun clubs.

[theatre goon]

12. Alternatively...

...it might be nice if hunters could hear what's going on around them, rather than losing ambient sound because of noise cancelling headphones. Suppressors also help dampen the sound to lower noise pollution in general. Personally, I'd prefer to be able to use both, to really protect my hearing and not annoy my neighbors (I'm just an awesome guy that way).

Additionally, how does lowering the sound of a gunshot from 160 db down to around 100 db (still extremely loud), make it easier to kill people and get away with it? How often does the sound of a gunshot actually help in an investigation...?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. "Anything that makes it easier..."

Are you kidding me? Seriously?

What makes it easier to kill and get away? Here's a list:
A car enables someone to partially hidden during a shooting and then leave the area quickly.
If on foot, running shoes could help a killer.
Hell, most clothing would help. Shooting someone while naked kind of highlights a shooter.
Knowledge of the law and police procedure along with the know how and means for taking forensic counter measures would help more than a silencer.
And finally, the money to afford a good lawyer might help if those other things don't.

[sarisataka]

3. In otherwords

make them available like they are in Europe.

[Eleanors38]

5. Some European countries REQUIRE them for hunting! Eek, a mouse!

[Eleanors38]

4. About time. Who likes 24 hr/day ear-ringing?

But the price will have to come down from the $1,000 price suppressors go for now.

Question for Reuters: Is the device for hearing protection, or is it for Hollywood JamesBond-stylehit-job, or whatever?

Save tax money: End Hollywood regulation/taxes and let the price settle to a reasonable level.

[DonP]

6. Just like those European Gun Nutz?

One minute we're supposed to be more like Euro Gun Control, now we're supposed to ignore what they do on this.

Europe, where suppressors are required for hunting in designated areas and are sold over the counter at hardware stores in several countries to people with a pistol or rifle permit. No special permits needed.

Sounds just like the imaginary "50 Caliber Terror" everyone was supposed to get all worked up about.

Sooooo, exactly how many crimes have been committed in the US with suppressors?

Or is this just one more Culture War battle that the gun control people have already lost on? I think they're legal for hunting use now in 37 (?) states so far. But that's probably just more Gun Nut Techno babble.

[pablo_marmol]

10. "One minute we're supposed to be more like Euro Gun Control.......

.......now we're supposed to ignore what they do on this."

Controller hypocrisy example #1,397. What a shame that so many in our party (willfully) fail to understand the political cost of this moronic culture war. Like four-year-olds, with their fingers in their ears chanting LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA.

[benEzra]

8. Here's a suppressor on a hunting rifle in Europe. Still damn loud.

Just not "blast snow off the roof of the shooting range" loud. First shot without suppressor, second shot with suppressor; it's still so loud that you can hear the echo off nearby structures.

A suppressed .308 in gun-control paradise, England; he starts using the suppressor at 1:04.

The only guns that can get anywhere near as quiet as a "Hollywood movie silencer" are bolt actions shooting very slow subsonic bullets out of full-length rifle barrels, which are fairly quiet even unsuppressed; out of a shorter barrel, suppressed pistol rounds sound more like an unsuppressed .22 shooting subsonics. Here's a New Zealand resident shooting a reproduction De Lisle carbine (Lee Enfield bolt-action rechambered for .45 ACP, shooting fat subsonic rounds from a long barrel at maybe 850 ft/sec):

A Remington 700 in .300 Blackout (probably in the USA):

I'd like to own one, but financially I doubt I'd be able to unless prices come down. Under the current rules, the tax alone is $200, plus the considerable cost of the suppressor.

[Duckhunter935]

9. common sense

I expect our resident pro control are for this common sense safety measure.

[ileus]

11. Not the gun industry, but shooters.

[flamin lib]

14. A .22 or .25 cal can become virtually silent with the action making more

noise than the actual gunshot. Neither is good for hunting, not enough kinetic energy, but good for close-in assassination by covert agents of various international wet works.

As for hunting, the sound reduction isn't enough to not damage hearing so if that's your goal get over-the-ear hearing protection. As for game you're only gonna get one shot anyway so why bother?

[ileus]

15. A friend of mine lets his 4yo girl shoot his P22 with a muffler

She can shoot it with only shooting glasses and doesn't flinch a bit because it's virtually silent.

[sarisataka]

17. So why are

They required in many parts of Europe?

[krispos42]

18. Professional assassinations is not something the public has to worry about.

But reducing a sound by 60 decibels? That's a huge difference. It's the difference between "not advisable" and "really bad idea".

[Straw Man]

19. Eh? Misconceptions abound.

A .22 or .25 cal can become virtually silent with the action making more

noise than the actual gunshot. Neither is good for hunting, not enough kinetic energy, but good for close-in assassination by covert agents of various international wet works.

You say .22 isn't good for hunting? What do you think squirrel hunters use? .30-06?

As for hunting, the sound reduction isn't enough to not damage hearing so if that's your goal get over-the-ear hearing protection. As for game you're only gonna get one shot anyway so why bother?

Much depends on round. Suppression and in-ear protection can protect hearing without burdening the hunter with clunky earmuffs that interfere with a good cheek weld.

You may only get one shot at the animal that's in your sights, but sound suppression can help you avoid spooking all the game for miles around.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

20. Come on now

It's the difference between "bond, james bond" and *JAMES BOND*.

[flamin lib]

21. You people would argue with a fence post wouldn't you.

Yes small rodents can be hunted with .22s. I personally prefer my breakbarrel .22 air rifle because it IS quiet enough to get two or three squirrels from one tree. However, my state specifically forbids using rim fire guns on anything other than small game like rabbits and squirrels or vermin.

I routinely shoot with 'clunky earmuffs' without issue and consistently make 3 inch groups at 100 meters with my 7.5 Swiss and iron sights (thank goodness for cataract surgery!).

Others here argue that using ear plugs or muffs deadens background noise thus the need for suppressors. Now you say that you need ear plugs AND a suppressor.

A suppressor would drop the noise level of my Swiss to about that of a 30-30. Both still need hearing protection and both will spook anything within a quarter mile.

No, the arguments for suppressors is nothing more than piffle from the gun makers to market another toy for easily persuaded gunners.

[Straw Man]

24. I will argue with misinformation wherever I see it.

I personally prefer my breakbarrel .22 air rifle because it IS quiet enough to get two or three squirrels from one tree.

And doesn't have as much kinetic energy as a rimfire rifle, and is therefore less likely to result in a swift and painless kill.

However, my state specifically forbids using rim fire guns on anything other than small game like rabbits and squirrels or vermin.

Exactly. Where did I imply anything else?

I routinely shoot with 'clunky earmuffs' without issue and consistently make 3 inch groups at 100 meters with my 7.5 Swiss and iron sights (thank goodness for cataract surgery!).

Good for you. Your 7.5 Swiss doesn't have a very high comb on the buttstock, and therefore muffs won't cause much interference. Others whose rifles have a different stock configuration will have a different experience.

Others here argue that using ear plugs or muffs deadens background noise thus the need for suppressors. Now you say that you need ear plugs AND a suppressor.

Ear plugs muffle less than ear muffs. Whether you "need" both depends on caliber, barrel length, specific ammo, etc. But you knew that ...

A suppressor would drop the noise level of my Swiss to about that of a 30-30. Both still need hearing protection and both will spook anything within a quarter mile.

Again: caliber, barrel length, specific loading.

No, the arguments for suppressors is nothing more than piffle from the gun makers to market another toy for easily persuaded gunners.

And what's the compelling argument against?

[flamin lib]

27. Like I said, a fence post.

There is no mis-information in either of my posts.

Argument against? I couldn't give a flying flaming fuck about how you spend your money. Set it on fire for all I care. That said I'm amazed at how easily the gun makers get gunners to drink their coolaid.

[Straw Man]

28. Spew all the insults you like.

Like I said, a fence post.

It doesn't change the facts. See below.

There is no mis-information in either of my posts.

You claimed that a .22 is not "good for hunting." That is misinformation, as any small-game hunter can attest.

Argument against? I couldn't give a flying flaming fuck about how you spend your money. Set it on fire for all I care. That said I'm amazed at how easily the gun makers get gunners to drink their coolaid.

I'll take that as a tacit admission that there is no valid argument against the legalization of suppressors.

Are we through here?

[flamin lib]

29. I never argued against legalizing them, just pointed out

how utterly useless they are and how easy it is for the gun manufacturers to bamboozle gunners into buying useless shit.

So, given the fact that you have drank the coolaid and seem willing to pay $700 to $1000 for a decoration on the end of your gun I guess that we really are through here.

Hunters eat what they kill, so if all you are interested in eating is rats and squirrels the .22 is the tool of choice.

[Straw Man]

30. Legalization is the topic of this thread.

I never argued against legalizing them, just pointed out

how utterly useless they are and how easy it is for the gun manufacturers to bamboozle gunners into buying useless shit.

Given the topic as per the OP, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

So, given the fact that you have drank the coolaid and seem willing to pay $700 to $1000 for a decoration on the end of your gun I guess that we really are through here.

They're not legal in my state. If they were, I might consider getting one. That would be my choice. If you don't like them, don't get one.

Hunters eat what they kill, so if all you are interested in eating is rats and squirrels the .22 is the tool of choice.

What, no rabbits?

I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong, that your post did contain misinformation.

Hunters also eradicate vermin. But you knew that.

[flamin lib]

31. Given the topic as per the OP, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

Who died and made you arbiter of relevance?

Hunters also eradicate vermin. But you knew that.

Uh, that would be exterminating, not hunting. See, I can pick at nits with the best of 'em. So by Gungeon reasoning you were wrong on that tiny tidbit so I can disqualify you from the conversation as it is clear that you know nothing about anything gun related. Learned it from hangin' out here in the Gungeon.

What, no rabbits? I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong, that your post did contain misinformation.

Keep beating this dead horse. I clarified the "hunting" in my earlier post in response to your dogmatic nonsense.

Now are we really finally finished here or do you need to have the last word? Go ahead, have the last word and claim moral superiority.

[Straw Man]

32. Well, it's like this ...

Given the topic as per the OP, your opinion is completely irrelevant.

Who died and made you arbiter of relevance?

When somebody posts about "legalization," a relevant opinion would be something along the lines of "I agree with it," or "I disagree with it." Saying "Suppressors aren't necessary" has nothing to do with whether or not they should be legalized. Hence, it is ... "irrelevant."

Hunters also eradicate vermin. But you knew that.

Uh, that would be exterminating, not hunting. See, I can pick at nits with the best of 'em. So by Gungeon reasoning you were wrong on that tiny tidbit so I can disqualify you from the conversation as it is clear that you know nothing about anything gun related. Learned it from hangin' out here in the Gungeon.

I see. I suggest that you Google "varmint hunters" and then contact all the organizations and publications that come up. Tell them that they're not "hunters." See what they say.

I was not "wrong" on that tidbit. Varmint hunters are hunters. You don't get to unilaterally redefine words to suit your purposes.

Keep beating this dead horse. I clarified the "hunting" in my earlier post in response to your dogmatic nonsense.

And who died and left you the arbiter of what is and what is not "hunting"? Talk about "dogmatic nonsense" ...

[beevul]

33. Oh, but thats the entire point...

Oh, but thats the entire point, and the M.O. of gun control folks:

...to unilaterally redefine words to suit your (their) purposes.

They do it with lots of words, like "rights", "regulated", and "people", why would "hunters" be any different?

[Eleanors38]

34. Well, you're here.

[TeddyR]

16. I think many gun control advocates

Are completely oblivious about how a gun operates or what it sounds like when fired. They'd be shocked I think at how loud a gun actually is, especially at indoor ranges.

[flamin lib]

22. And some of us know exactly how loud guns are and exactly how little

suppressors can do.

[DonP]

23. Gee, then don't buy one

In the meantime, already legal for hunting in most states and selling them as fast as they can make them.

Probably coming off the NFA register in the next 3 or 4 years. That horse is out of the barn already.

[melm00se]

25. You need to actually handle a gun

(pistol at least) with a suppressor on it to know that it is not really a criminal's weapon.

In general:
1) they don't make a gun "silent" (they are still pretty loud as evidenced above).
2) they add significant size to the length of a handgun (~8 inches).
3) they add significant weight to a pistol (and make them more muzzle heavy) which requires more practice to shoot well.

Personally, other than the sound reduction, I don't really like them. I shoot really poorly with them. Maybe if I shot a couple of hundred or more rounds thru them, I might have a different opinion but I'd rather spend the $700-1000 (cost + tax stamp) on something else.

[ileus]

26. Imagine the jobs created with making mufflers quicker to receive.

I'd buy a 30 cal one tomorrow if I could show up, buy the muffler and pay the 200 buck tax stamp same day. Hell I may even do it if the wait was only a few weeks.

Of course I'd follow that up with a 22lr can, or I may start with the 22.