Suppressors are going Mainstream...

Suppressors are going Mainstream...

This is a discussion on Suppressors are going Mainstream... within the Related Gear & Equipment forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Here's a good article on suppressor use written by the NRA. Reprinted with permission. Suppressors-Good for Our Hearing . . . and The Shooting Sports ...

Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Suppressors are going Mainstream...

  1. #1
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,128

    Suppressors are going Mainstream...

    Here's a good article on suppressor use written by the NRA. Reprinted with permission.

    Suppressors-Good for Our Hearing . . . and The Shooting Sports

    When I was growing up in the 1970s, I shot as often as I could and never considered hearing protection. I recall when I was 5 years old, my father and his friend handed me a two-inch .357 Magnum and challenged me to hit a Montana coyote on the far hillside. I launched all five shots and, to the joy of my audience, came remarkably close to ending the coyote's rabbit-munching days. Needless to say, the experience left my ears ringing for a while and I wondered if they would ever return to normal.

    We hear the same story from countless hunters and shooters who might not realize that a lack of hearing protection can result in lasting hearing loss--until it's too late. Billions of dollars are spent every year in our healthcare system for hearing loss conditions, such as shooting-related tinnitus. Fortunately, the days of sophisticated electronic hearing protection are upon us. These little battery-powered marvels amplify the good sounds (range commands) while still providing a significant degree of protection. The truth is, however, that even with quality devices like these, shooting can still cause damage to our hearing.

    Sound suppressors attached to firearms (less accurately called "silencers" in federal law) are an additional tool available to help protect our hearing and are quickly gaining in popularity throughout the country. Although few may realize it, suppressors are not a new innovation. The Maxim Silencer Company opened its doors more than a century ago. Teddy Roosevelt is reported to have used one on his Winchester Model 94 at his Long Island home in order to avoid disturbing his neighbors while dispatching varmints. However, recent advances in technology and manufacturing capabilities have made them more available and appealing to the shooting masses.

    Unfortunately, too many Americans (including some gun owners) still fall victim to the unfair portrayals by Hollywood. Although "silencers" are almost exclusively put in the hands of James Bond or assassins on the silver screen, in reality suppressors are commonly used by hundreds of thousands of law-abiding citizens who appreciate the many benefits of reducing harmful sound. They are virtually never used in the commission of crimes today, and criminal misuse carries severe penalties. The sound-suppressing devices don't make firearms silent but they do help mitigate the otherwise damaging and disturbing noise.

    Our society is full of devices that muffle sound to prevent hearing loss and noise pollution--firearm sound suppression is no different.
    While American gun owners don't often point to Europeans as providing an example that should be followed, their use of suppressors is an exception. In many of the countries "across the pond," the use of these noise-attenuating devices is actively encouraged. Buying "moderators" (their term for suppressors) from a hardware store is often no different than buying a hammer or a screwdriver. They are not always subject to the same draconian regulation that they are here in the United States.






    Firearms are usually defined as a weapon by which a projectile is discharged by gunpowder. Strangely, suppressors are also considered "firearms" in the United States and regulated pursuant to the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). In order to acquire a suppressor, a purchaser must complete the appropriate NFA paperwork, undergo a background check, find a licensed dealer authorized to conduct the transaction and pay a one-time $200 tax for each device.

    Recently, Michigan became the 39th state to legalize suppressor possession. The 11 states that prohibit their possession and use, along with many other states that bar their use during specific activities such as hunting, are essentially mandating that firearms produce as much inner-ear-destroying noise as they possibly can. This doesn't happen with cars, motorcycles, airplanes, air conditioning units, dishwashers, construction equipment or anything else that comes to mind. There is no logical reason for firearms to be singled out when it comes to our desire to make things quieter.

    While hearing protection during routine shooting practice is arguably the most important benefit suppressors offer to civilian shooters, there are a number of others that deserve mention. Without a doubt, they help many shooters increase accuracy. Humans have a primordial fear of loud noise that contributes to the most common cause of missed shots--trigger flinch. The less noise a gun produces, the less likely a shooter is to flinch just before the shot breaks. Felt recoil is another contributor to flinch and the weight of suppressors helps to reduce this. More accurate shooting in the field means fewer wounded and lost animals--a good thing for hunters and wildlife.

    Noise complaints are causing closures of shooting ranges, informal shooting areas and hunting lands throughout the country. This is a trend the NRA and its members spend untold resources fighting. Increased use of suppressors on ranges and hunting lands will work to decrease these detrimental complaints. It is worth noting that keeping his target shooting from disrupting neighbors was what motivated Hiram Maxim to begin the country's first commercial production of suppressors.

    In addition, the use of suppressors in a home defense scenario cannot be discounted. Shooting any firearm in an enclosed space, such as a hallway or small room, sends shock waves to your core. The tiny components of the inner ear get pummeled. Of course, prevailing in a life threatening scenario is the first priority, but it should not come at the cost of living the remainder of life with a significant hearing disability if it can be avoided.
    Finally, those of us who have tried and failed to find an adequate way to protect our hearing while hunting can benefit from suppressors, especially while hunting in a fixed location such as a stand or blind where the extra weight is not a detriment. My current practice is to rest plugs in my ears so that my ability to detect the sounds of approaching game is not hindered. As I consider a shot, I fully insert them. Of course, things occasionally happen too quickly for me to implement my best laid plans and damage is done. Use of suppressors in these instances would certainly reduce the probability of harm.



    Some will argue that the legalization of suppressor use while hunting will increase the incidents of poaching, but the experience of the many states that allow the practice clearly proves them wrong. Would these opponents mandate the use of the .338 Lapua with a muzzle brake in order for shots to be heard from the greatest possible distance? Is the diminutive .243 Win. Simply too quiet? As one suppressor advocate in Montana asked earlier this year during the legislative session, should all bow hunters be required to sound an air horn every time they release an arrow in order to alert any nearby wardens?

    The reality is, the less muzzle noise heard by the non-hunting public, the better off we all are.
    It's time that policymakers--legislators, wildlife commissioners and gun club board members--move to eliminate the laws, regulations and policies that discourage or prohibit suppressor use. In addition to decreasing the incidents of permanent hearing loss, it will help keep the shooting sports alive and well by decreasing the calls to close shooting areas and hunting lands. Suppressors may not be for everyone, but that's the best aspect of freedom--it is your choice.
    Posted: 11/17/2011 9:00:00 AM
    Copyright 2011, National Rifle Association of America, Institute for Legislative Action.
    This may be reproduced. It may not be reproduced for commercial purposes.
    11250 Waples Mill Road, Fairfax, VA 22030 800-392-8683
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/


  2. #2
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    I have never seen so many factory guns per-threaded for cans as I have recently. I have to wonder what is driving this.

    I ordered my first one last month.

    Michael

  3. #3
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,128
    I think that with with the Internet and information being so easy to get, that a lot of people are finally figuring out that they are not illegal after all. You do the paperwork, pay the tax stamp and its a done deal.

    For casual shooting, they really make a lot of sense.

    The ATF has over 22,000 pending applications right now, so buisness is really picking up. Unfortunatly, there are only 10 people working on it and they dont seem to get in a rush.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  4. #4
    VIP Member Array Tubby45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Making ammo.
    Posts
    3,054
    There was talk about the NFA branch getting the OK to add more NFA processors to handle the additional paperwork they have.

    I'm finally glad Michigan (my state) is finally allowed suppressors. I had a few in WI but had to sell them when I moved. Being an SOT the past few years, it broke my heart to tell locals you can't have them. I've had them for all my personal guns. If I'm not hunting, I shoot with a suppressor. Period. Next move is getting the DNR to allow hunting with suppressors.

    Very happy the NRA is getting on this. They've been very anti-NFA for many, many years.
    07/02 FFL/SOT since 2006

  5. #5
    VIP Member
    Array ksholder's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,009
    I have heard that there is a movement afoot to get the tax stamp down to $5.00. I hope that this makes it through.
    It's the Land of Opportunity, not the Land of Entitlements - Vote America!!!

    "When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny." Thomas Jefferson

    You are only paranoid until you are right - then you are a visionary.

  6. #6
    Senior Moderator
    Array Tangle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Chattanooga
    Posts
    9,888
    First, I am super glad to see this!

    But, why should there be a tax stamp and all that paperwork for a suppressor at all? There's no tax stamp requirement for guns????

    Plus, IIRC, even with a tax stamp it's a little more complicated than 'now I have a legal suppressor'. E.g., again if I recall correctly, no one can be in possession of your suppressor without your presence. You can't take a suppressor across a state line without prior notification, and I think, permission from the BATFE.

    All that needs to be changed.
    I'm too young to be this old!
    Getting old isn't good for you!

  7. #7
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,128
    If they ever change it to a 5 dollar transfer fee, I'm quitting work and going full time selling.
    I cant see it though, when was the last time the Government ever reduced a tax?

    again if I recall correctly, no one can be in possession of your suppressor without your presence. You can't take a suppressor across a state line without prior notification, and I think, permission from the BATFE.
    All that needs to be changed.
    Amen Brother, preach it!
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  8. #8
    Member Array titleist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    459
    Everything seems to have picked up after AAC joined forces with Bushy/Remington. Of course the cousin companies will now produce guns that are immediately compatible with their aftermarket accessories.

    Another thing is that these suppressors are quieter, cheaper, and easier to get than ever before. In Northern Virginia, the only Sheriffs that refrains from signing your Form 4 come from two very small areas bordering Washington, DC. Two-hundred dollars definitely was worth more when the act was written than it is today, and there are at least 5 good choices within any given category to choose from.

    AAC's introduction of the Blackout (still loud in a semi auto, even subsonic/suppressed) and innovations like that to help incorporate suppressors into the market will only help it take off further.

    I am a little concerned though, that for a while we were getting Form 4's back in 3 months this past year, but since the have moved operations to their new facility it is more like 5 months wait. A lot of people have a hard time getting their head around dropping a grand on something you cant take home for half a year.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Array Ring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by ksholder View Post
    I have heard that there is a movement afoot to get the tax stamp down to $5.00. I hope that this makes it through.
    this would be nice.. i have 3 cans now...

  10. #10
    Senior Member Array Ring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by Tangle View Post
    First, I am super glad to see this!

    But, why should there be a tax stamp and all that paperwork for a suppressor at all? There's no tax stamp requirement for guns????

    Plus, IIRC, even with a tax stamp it's a little more complicated than 'now I have a legal suppressor'. E.g., again if I recall correctly, no one can be in possession of your suppressor without your presence. You can't take a suppressor across a state line without prior notification, and I think, permission from the BATFE.

    All that needs to be changed.
    not correct... that is only for full auto, not cans

  11. #11
    Senior Member Array A1C Lickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Ring View Post
    not correct... that is only for full auto, not cans
    Do you have a reference for that? I've always been told that if it has a tax stamp then it needs to be in the possession of the person (or persons in the case of a trust, or employee of the company) listed on the stamp.

    Also I believe you just have to notify, you're not asking permission to move your own property.
    Last edited by A1C Lickey; December 6th, 2011 at 04:47 PM. Reason: Didn't quite finish what I was saying....
    TSgt. Lickey

    It takes a college degree to break'em;
    and a high school education to fix'em!

  12. #12
    Senior Member Array Ring's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    ohio
    Posts
    545
    Quote Originally Posted by A1C Lickey View Post
    Do you have a reference for that? I've always been told that if it has a tax stamp then it needs to be in the possession of the person (or persons in the case of a trust, or employee of the company) listed on the stamp.

    Also I believe you just have to notify, you're not asking permission to move your own property.
    if u have a full auto, and want to take it to another state, u need to fill out a from.. this is not the case on cans..

    ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - National Firearms Act (NFA) - Firearms


    Q: Does the registered owner of a destructive device, machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle need authorization to lawfully transport such items interstate?

    Yes, unless the owner is a qualified dealer, manufacturer or importer, or a licensed collector transporting only curios or relics. Prior approval must be obtained, even if the move is temporary. Approval is requested by either submitting a letter containing all necessary information, or by submitting ATF Form 5320.20 to the Bureau of ATF, NFA Branch. Possession of the firearms also must comply with all State and local laws.
    [18 U.S.C. 922(a) (4), 27 CFR 478.28]
    notice they dont say suppressor...

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

.243 winchester suppressor

,
are ballistic sound suppressors legal?
,

are suppressors legal in oregon

,
can you take suppressors across state lines
,
hunting with a suppressor in montana
,
is there any current laws trying to be passed to legalize suppressors without a tax stamp
,

montana suppressors

,
over the counter suppressor
,

suppressor are going mainstream

,

suppressors montana

,
supressor montana
,
transporting silencers on airplanes
Click on a term to search for related topics.