(ssshhhh…silencers) — No Comments

  1. Just bought a suppressor. Sent the $200 and paperwork and now can enjoy an 8 month wait for the license. What’s with that?

  2. Back in the old days when I grew up NO ONE had hearing protection, most hunters still don’t. When I went into the USAF we got some chunks of hard wax to somehow get into our ears. After I got out ear protection was plentiful.
    If silencers would have been available all along a whole lot of us old guys could hear a lot better. Or even hear.

  3. Just think, the crackle of gunfire replaced by ‘thwit, thwit’…well, that’s what they sound like on TV!

  4. I was wondering how many organizations were out there trying to remove the stupid-ass restrictions on suppressors in this country. The NRA sure as hell doesn’t appear to be doing anything, even after this article alleging that they are “pro-silencer” now:

    As with SBR/SBS (and any NFA item, really), I am hopeful that all that stupid crap will get removed but I’m not yet ready to hold my breath. =

  5. I’d love to see the day when you can buy a suppressor without getting a tax stamp from the ATF. Then I’d probably pick one up.

    I imagine even then, suppressors on home defense firearms will still look bad in court…

    While not as cool, electronic ear muffs on the nightstand work for me.

  6. The 1932 NFA requireing a $200 tax and jumping through numerous regulatory hoops in order to possess a gun muffler has been one of the worst public health disasters created by the federal government. Millions have suffered hearing loss as a result.

    This issue is finally coming to a head. There is no logic or reason that gun mufflers should not be available in the local hardware store for $75, as they are in Finland.

    The Supreme court in Finland ruled that it was a constitutional right to be able to construct, sell, or trade silencers.

    You know we have a real problem when most European nations have less restrictive gun laws in this area than the United States.

  7. I’d love a silencer or a sbr, or full auto.
    The money aside, I don’t want to have to keep up with all the paperwork, the renewals, and carry a sheef of documents every time I go to the range.
    Love the idea, don’t want the hassle.
    heck, even with the tax stamps most silencers are still under a grand…which is pretty reasonable, especially if you buy one of the ones with removable baffles for cleaning.

  8. My paternal grandfather patented a supressor (silencer) in 1914. The Germans wanted to buy the rights to it and he refused to sell.

  9. That $200 fee, is that for ONE gun only?
    I have, and enjoy shooting many different firearms. Of course I use very good ear muffs at the indoor range, and take them with me to an outdoor range.
    A suppressor would just make it easier to use a pair of ear plugs and not have to wipe off my head around my ears after a hour or two of shooting time.

  10. I’m all for law abiding American citizens to own and use sound suppressors for legal activities. However, I doubt very much the federal government will drop the $200 tax for possessing one since 1934.

    In fact, with our current anti-gun regime in Washington D.C. I’m surprised the tax has not been increased, both to further restrict ownership of class 3 devices and to raise additional revenue to waste on money losing programs. Back in 1934, $200 was a lot of money, but nowadays that’s pocket change for many folks, so if you want a can or selective fire gun, better get one now while you still can and the cost is relatively low.

  11. We allow deer hunting on our land by permission only. It’s not a huge amount of land – about 400 acres of wheat fields and coolies. We do NOT want silancers for hunting as we want to know where the hunters are and that there are not trespassers about. Judy G

  12. @Bulldog Chuck.

    >That $200 fee, is that for ONE gun only?

    That is for the supressor. You can attach it to any of your firearms of the appropriate caliber. You would need to have each ones barrel threaded to accept it.

    This is for stand alone supressors that screw on.

    If you want to have an integral (built in) suppressor then you would have to separately apply for each one and pay $200 tax for each one.

  13. “I imagine even then, suppressors on home defense firearms will still look bad in court…”

    Because we didn’t risk losing our hearing when defending out family?

  14. At Judy,
    A suppressor doesn’t make anything other than a handgun firing subsonic ammunition truly silent (and usually not even then.)
    There are only a few firearms I can think of that would be used for deer hunting that a suppressor would completely silence and none of them are common.
    As it’s your property, I can respect your desire to keep tabs on what’s going on. For most of us suppressor’s aren’t about hiding. They’re about reducing volume to manageable levels.
    A 223, 306, 300 win mag, 30-30, 308, or 7.62 are all supersonic rounds. So while the suppressor will reduce the noise from the expanding cartridge gasses, the bullet breaking the sound barrier will still be heard across your property.
    Just FYI.
    Thanks for supporting hunting.

  15. In the process now and looking forward to mine after the wait. Just my opinion, but I don’t see how using a suppressor in your home for defense would affect the outcome in court (outside the home is another thing though). As for hunting, if someone is going to trespass or poach they will most likely not think not be worried about other laws. That said, if people hunt your land you would be well within your rights not to allow them to use suppressors but that does not mean it should be illegal for others. Hopefully we will get another shot at the bill this year to allow hunting with suppressors in GA. Passed the state Senate with overwhelming votes, did not get by the House.

  16. Back at MD Matt; A well thought out and informative reply! 🙂 Thx for the information. I do support their use for target practice etc.


  17. Silencers make a lot of sense for home defense. When are we going to start hearing about Night Vision Goggles for home defense? With NVGs, we might be able to sneak up on the bad guy, and get him in our old non-luminescent iron sights without flashlights attached to barrels. No more one-hand holds on the gun while the other hand holds the flashlight, giving away our position.

  18. At Fezzywig and others.
    The concern with suppressors in a home defense situation is that the prosecution will use their presence to paint the picture of the dgu as a person who was looking to kill the intruder with malice a for thought rather than simply defend their property.
    Look at how the movies and TV portray silencers and you can see why this is an issue. Only assassins and military use silencers on TV. If such a case goes to trial, the concern is that the 12 average Americans who don’t have this blog’s level of context will be swayed by that argument.
    See the case of Harold fish, where a man was painted as an unstable reactionary simply for carrying a 10mm rather than some lesser cartridge.
    The more tech you put into your home court advantage, the greater the chance that you will be successfully painted as the aggressor rather than the victim.
    Stupid, but that’s the way the argument goes.

  19. I heard it put this way. If firearms were invented today, the government would force you to put a silencer on it. Name one other thing that people own that is capable of making a a loud noise that isn’t required to have a “muffler” on it.

    Silencers (suppressors, whatever) are a lot of fun, and are a big help when it comes to instructing others. My daughter really enjoys my suppressor on the .22 because she doesn’t have to wear ear protection. That means that our shooting sessions are longer.

  20. Judy G Says:
    September 26th, 2012
    We allow deer hunting on our land by permission only. It’s not a huge amount of land – about 400 acres of wheat fields and coolies. We do NOT want silancers for hunting as we want to know where the hunters are and that there are not trespassers about. Judy G
    Gosh, Judy, since you allow “by permission only” all you have to do is say, “No silencers” when giving that permission. Problem solved and your guests just wear hearing protection.
    Suppressors are a great idea for fun shooting and the paperwork and $$ involved in getting one legally are obviously only a burden to the law-abiding. Any criminal planning to use a “silencer” isn’t going to delay his “hit” for 8 months while waiting to get approved so the dumbass law prevents no crime at all.

  21. It is an idea whose time has more than come. We need the free market to make impovements and lower cost. Then the military can piggy back off of those improvements.

  22. I remember some time ago reading about someone who put a raw potato on the end of a firearm and then shot it.

    He was arrested, tried and convicted of using an unregistered suppressor.

    BATFE’s reasoning for enforcement was that ANY item that will reduce the sound signature regardless of how little is a suppressor, and has to be approved through appropriate channels.

  23. At one time it was said that putting a 1 liter plastic bottle over the muzzle of a .22 RF would work for a few shots. At one time I saw a fellow selling adaptors that could be fitted to the muzzle by sweating (soldering) them on. He ran ads for them in the back of gun mags. Haven’t seen them recently, so maybe the ATF got after him. Check out the movie SHOOTER with Mark Wahlberg and you will see him using one on the bad guys.