Reduced muzzle flash (which can reduce picking up and throwing around dirt/light debris when firing from the prone)
There can be some slight accuracy improvement or degradation based on how the suppressor affects gas turbulence as the bullet exits. A bigger accuracy issue when fired by an actual person is anticipating the shot. that can result in flinching, jerking, overly tensing, etc. By reducing noise, recoil and flash it makes the actual shot less unpleasant make it easier to overcome the urge to prepare for it. That can produce accuracy improvements. In a home defense situation it can also mean less jump after the shot making it easier and quicker to realign sites and fire follow on shots.
Whatever. I’mgoing to go with you are in a non-combat slot, have an absolutely minimal experience with guns, no experience with suppressors, and no more than a passing acquaintance with crossbows. I don’t think you “get it” either. You are entitled to your opinion on suppressors, but not all opinions are of equal worth.
The question shouldn’t be framed this way. The restriction needs the justification, not the other way around. But to go with this for a moment - smaller caliber ammunition is less effective.
A suppresor would also help hearing protection during practice. Practice sessions could be 100, or 1000+ rounds fired. Reducing the amount of impact to hearing would be helpful to make practice sessions easier on the ears. Anything that makes practicing easier with little cost is a good thing.
Muzzle flash washing out night adapted vision in say a home defense scenario is still an issue. Reducing power of ammunition helps the same issues but can make the round less effective. Whether that’s killing large game quickly and humanely or having a round with decent lethality for home defense, not all bullets are created equal. Less power isn’t an issue if you are just target shooting for fun It can be an issue if killing someone or some animal is the justification for squeezing the trigger.
IF someone wants to own a handgun for personnel protection, and IF they feel that they need a certain caliber of projectile for “stopping power,” then that person should probably practice frequently. If a suppressor makes practice easier/safer/more convenient, then fine.
Question for those who live in states where they are legal – do you see a lot of the guys at the range with them? I’ve never seen anyone actually using a suppressor, but I’m not sure if they’ve been legal anywhere I’ve been to a range. My gut feeling is that if they were legalized across the board, a few fanboys with tacticool ARs would run out and get them for plinking in the woods but your average gun range wouldn’t see much increase in their use, despite everyone here saying how awesome they are. But that’s just a hunch, I could be wrong and they could proliferate if legalized.
Anyway, I don’t envision criminals lining up to get suppressors, so go ahead, legalize them. Works for me.
You’re adding weight to the end of the barrel where it’s going to affect the balance most. It may be harder to aim. Other than that, it’s a hollow tube with some baffles in it, it’s not going to affect the bullet’s travel.
What opinion do you think I’ve expressed on suppresors?
And unless you’re a mod or admin, it turns out opinions on this board don’t have much objective worth at all. Feel free to arbitrarily weigh mine as you choose.
Loook dude, you are the one who trotted out your 25 years in the Canadian Reserves like it gave your post added weight or was important to the topic under discussion. If you didn’t want questioned on it ,I guess you shouldn’t have brought it up. That’s how discussion boards work, including this one. As for playing whatever game of advanced redass you are working at in your last post, not interested.
I explained why I did that - it was to dispel the idea that I thought was being implied that I was some kind of utter gun naïf who felt reflexive fear at the very subject of guns. I claim familiarity, not expertise.
Question me all you want; I love the attention. It doesn’t seem particularly relevant to this thread, though.
Huh, “advanced redass”. My vocabulary is enriched.
Apparently, that is true in England, Wales, and Scotland, but in NI self defense (or defence) is a valid reason.
My usual range is in the desert, but I’ve never noticed one in “public.” IIRC they are one of the most common NFA items, as they are only a couple hundred bucks including stamp, whereas most FA firearms cost 5 figures minimum. But the process is onerous enough that most people won’t bother.
Sounds about right. Supposedly it is not hard to make your own (but a bit more than duct taping a soda bottle on!) and people do, but the penalty for doing it illegally is stiff. All it takes to saw off a rifle or shotgun is a hacksaw, yet if it were made non-NFA legal it would probably mean that the same niche group is now doing it a bit easier while everyone else doesn’t care.
I always thought that it was interesting that many countries (NZ off the top of my head) actually require the use of sound suppressors when hunting.
They were made NFA weapons in '34 because of their association with organized crime, but I don’t know how much of that is fact and how much of that was hysteria.
I should also add that if you wanted to make a suppressor for nefarious purposes, at least for a .22, it is trivial. I don’t think the fact that they aren’t used in crime very often has to do with the fact that they are NFA weapons and illegal in many states.
I don’t know about you, but most people make mistakes. Considering this, I’d like to know if combat practice was going on near my house, so my family can reduce our chances of being accidentally shot.
Also, fear of a negative reaction from unarmed neighbors might discouraged our armed neighbors from engaging in said practice. Less shooting would be, to me, to the good.
And I make mistakes too. Normally I don’t go into game lands, and parks where hunting is allowed, during long gun hunting seasons. But hearing gun shots is a good reminder.
They’ve been illegal in Australia for a while but there are quite a few floating around and it’s not unusual to find .22’s that have been threaded to take them.
I did a bit of shooting with them on a .22 rifle (Brno Model 5 bolt-action), mainly hunting rabbits and foxes.
With high velocity ammo a silencer would reduce the noise slightly but it was still very loud and unmistakably a gunshot.
Using subsonic ammo was a very different result. It really was like dry-firing the rifle, a click, a slight ‘phutt’ sound and you could clearly hear the sound of the projectile hitting the target.
The main effect on shooting was the difference in impact point - if your rifle is sighted in for a particular brand of HV ammo at 50m and you start shooting subsonics your bullets won’t be hitting where your crosshairs are pointed. From memory I think at 50m it was about around an inch lower with our setup so you either adjust your scope when you switch ammo or just compensate a bit by aiming higher.
I do recall using a silencer on my dads semi-auto .22 that when using subsonic ammo the action wouldn’t cycle. Presumably that is also one of the reasons for why some manufactures quote high decibel levels - you need to use a higher velocity round to cycle the action on handguns and heavier calibre rifles.