PDA

View Full Version : Let's talk about supressors



Stevebot-7
07-24-2014, 10:19 AM
Yesterday I made a post about how some people are angry at the idea of a mandatory firearms safety course. I proposed the idea of using this to leverage a "Supressor Safety Course" into the framework of the impending Common Sense Firearms Act that was just announced on the 23rd. This theoretical course would allow those who complete it to possess and acquire supressors, perhaps as an endorsement added onto their PAL, perhaps as an independent certificate. The response I got made it seem like the very idea was offending.

So my question to you the people is this:

Do you support the idea of making a concerted effort to add the ability to take a Supressor Safety Course to the Firearms Act?

Currently it is impossible, full stop not possible no way, for civilians to possess, acquire, or use supressors. Ergo, it seems to me that gaining the ability to do so after completing a safety course would count as an overall victory for us. We gain the ability to use supressors, we lose perhaps some of our sense of being strong independent firearm owners. Am I wrong?

Please discuss.

awndray
07-24-2014, 10:25 AM
I think it would be great if we could use suppressors; but a safety course?

http://38.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmhfnh6jfF1qzrzrro1_500.jpg

superbrad
07-24-2014, 10:26 AM
The safety and usage aspect of firing a gun with a supressor is no different than firing one that has no supressor...... Why have a course?

RangeBob
07-24-2014, 10:43 AM
The good ol document:


Legalize Sound Suppressors in Canada

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

Strewth
07-24-2014, 11:10 AM
The safety and usage aspect of firing a gun with a supressor is no different than firing one that has no supressor...... Why have a course?
Because tax money and "public safety" spin? I'd sign up for the course in a heartbeat. "This is how you screw it on....no,no, on the muzzle, Jimmy. It doesn't quite fit in the magwell, see?"
Also a seminar on care and feeding of your new pet?
Probably best to thread a cable lock through it to transport it as well:rolleyes:.

The good ol document:
Beat me to it:).

Interesting push at this time, I'm always up for a new letter writing campaign. First I want to see what shakes down out of the new proposals by Minister Blaney, and get ourselves organised, but I can't see why this wouldn't be near the top of our "want" list.
If it (literally) saves one ear.

Strangeday
07-24-2014, 11:15 AM
I think a safety course for people using them is a good idea. It also helps people understand how they work and the dangers of failing to maintain them. I have seen someone improperly mount a 5.56 suppressor and bazinga when the can explodes and sends pieces everywhere...

The only reason supressors are illegal in Canada is someone marketed them to law makers as a tool for crime. They have lots of legit uses.

Carguy2550
07-24-2014, 11:19 AM
At this point I feel our efforts would be better spent having the safety course put back as a single restricted/non-restricted course. What is the difference in the course books - one extra chapter? Never mind the extra money someone new would have to spend just get an RPAL.

awndray
07-24-2014, 11:22 AM
I think a safety course for people using them is a good idea. It also helps people understand how they work and the dangers of failing to maintain them.
I know it's not very manly to suggest this, but wouldn't reading the owner's manual cover that?

88 louie
07-24-2014, 12:30 PM
A course- No. Use should be attached to a RPAL. I would support the use for several reasons.
1- prevention of damage to hearing.
2- saving the RCMP time from responding to shots fired in areas that you can lawfully discharge a firearm, just because someone is hearing someone else, out target practicing.
3- many outdoor ranges are being closed due to noise complaints.

zulu
07-24-2014, 12:45 PM
I would be for it! It would be far better if we could. Less range noise and better for the ears

50 B.M.G.
07-24-2014, 12:47 PM
I think a safety course for people using them is a good idea. It also helps people understand how they work and the dangers of failing to maintain them. I have seen someone improperly mount a 5.56 suppressor and bazinga when the can explodes and sends pieces everywhere...

The only reason supressors are illegal in Canada is someone marketed them to law makers as a tool for crime. They have lots of legit uses.

Agreed! As sad as it is, fewer people today seem to be able to read ( it seems literacy is an endangered species today ) and getting people to read the basic care and maintenance of something wrongly perceived as an attach and shoot accessory is going to be near impossible.

The thought of yet another government course is repulsive, but sadly I think necessary.

88 louie
07-24-2014, 01:08 PM
Agreed! As sad as it is, fewer people today seem to be able to read ( it seems literacy is an endangered species today ) and getting people to read the basic care and maintenance of something wrongly perceived as an attach and shoot accessory is going to be near impossible.

The thought of yet another government course is repulsive, but sadly I think necessary.

Sad but true, there's a reason manufactures put manuals with products, usually in several languages. Warnings and safety guidelines.

Rory McCanuck
07-24-2014, 01:45 PM
I cut yesterday's range trip short because of a local event going on less than a mile away.
Everything legal and all, but no need to provoke 10,000 campers with a 7mm and a short barreled 30-06 farting in their general direction. There is no valid argument that I know of against the use of suppressors, but many for it.
If we had the oppotunity, why wouldn't we pounce on it.
If the mandatory course/no test challenges is part of the give and take for reducing the CFO's god-like powers, why not the use of suppressors as they payment for taking a test we don't need?
That's how politics works, isn't it?

Brordo
07-24-2014, 01:51 PM
I'm not a fan of another safety course but would be willing to take it if having the ability to use a suppressor was on the table. Having used cans down south I fully appreciate their usefulness in protecting our hearing.

Laramie Longhorn
07-24-2014, 02:19 PM
They are legal for hunting in the UK. I can see the advantage there. You are far less likely to wear ear-pro in the bush trying to sneak up on an animal. Why tie to RPAL and restrict to ranges? Great for horse hunting too, less likely to spook and buck.

I'm sure somebody will correct me, but isn't using a supressor in a crime a separate charge already? So if it's already an offence to use in a crime, why not open it for legal use? I mean it makes sense that once it is illegal to commit an act, we don't have to make it double-secret illegal to possess and use the item safely. Like guns. LOL <Crying on the inside>

Swampdonkey
07-24-2014, 04:16 PM
Like magazine and length restrictions, could we go about this incrementally? Redefine "noise suppressing device" to exclude anything not attached to a firearm, then permit them for certain uses, ever expanding that until they're unregulated? Fix the law by a thousand penstrokes?

Mikthaniel
07-24-2014, 04:23 PM
A course- No. Use should be attached to a RPAL. I would support the use for several reasons.
1- prevention of damage to hearing.
2- saving the RCMP time from responding to shots fired in areas that you can lawfully discharge a firearm, just because someone is hearing someone else, out target practicing.
3- many outdoor ranges are being closed due to noise complaints.

So, I don't own an RPAL means that my hearing is less valuable to me than yours is to you?
I'm sorry but that particular point makes no sense...

88 louie
07-24-2014, 04:43 PM
So, I don't own an RPAL means that my hearing is less valuable to me than yours is to you?
I'm sorry but that particular point makes no sense...

Not trying to offend others. Right now they are considered to be a prohibited device. Should/if any change happens. I Would think they would only bring them down 1 level to start. The gov works in baby steps. Also I would think that they would only be allowed at gov approved ranges. Maybe the range rents it to you to use while your there. Another tax income source. I'm just being realistic in how the gov operates. It'd be great if both NR & R classes could have them. Though , Ya never know.

BrotherRockeye
07-24-2014, 07:52 PM
I know it's not very manly to suggest this, but wouldn't reading the owner's manual cover that?

bite your tongue! :p


Not trying to offend others. Right now they are considered to be a prohibited device. Should/if any change happens. I Would think they would only bring them down 1 level to start. The gov works in baby steps. Also I would think that they would only be allowed at gov approved ranges. Maybe the range rents it to you to use while your there. Another tax income source. I'm just being realistic in how the gov operates. It'd be great if both NR & R classes could have them. Though , Ya never know.

really...rental silencers...like universal clamp on jobbies or what?

88 louie
07-24-2014, 09:15 PM
This is an awesome article, 25 pages, but worth it. I wonder if the article could be or is being re-sent to the gov. After the announcement july 23/14 to change legislation for firearm owners. I hope so, Anxious to see what develops in the fall.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

Swampdonkey
07-24-2014, 09:33 PM
Permit ranges to set up suppressing booths like they do elsewhere?

RangeBob
07-24-2014, 10:24 PM
Permit ranges to set up suppressing booths like they do elsewhere?

Unfortunately, today, such might be a prohibited device [(c) below].


“prohibited device” means

(a) any component or part of a weapon, or any accessory for use with a weapon, that is prescribed to be a prohibited device,

(b) a handgun barrel that is equal to or less than 105 mm in length, but does not include any such handgun barrel that is prescribed, where the handgun barrel is for use in international sporting competitions governed by the rules of the International Shooting Union,

(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,

(d) a cartridge magazine that is prescribed to be a prohibited device, or

(e) a replica firearm;

50 B.M.G.
07-25-2014, 07:37 AM
With a few LE agencies in Canada now mandating the use of a can on their "patrol carbines" due to OH&S studies and regs, what the civilian market needs to do is to hammer the government with a MASSIVE class action for all the hearing loss they have caused by outlawing a basic piece of personal safety equipment.
If we can get fined for NOT wearing a seat belt or helmet while driving or a PFD while in a boat or not wearing steel toe boots, hard hats, safety glasses etc. while working, I think the judges would see the double edged sword here in the government then fining or imprisoning us for trying to use a piece of personal safety equipment attached to our firearms to protect not only our own hearing but also the hearing of the children.

The mandate of several LE agencies OH&S is that the claim rate for hearing damage is increasing dramatically, so safety equipment is needed to avoid these claims.
I guess some folks hearing is of a much higher value than that of the less favored masses?

awndray
07-25-2014, 07:44 AM
Within the same scope of personal protection equipment, one could also argue that wearing earplugs or muffs could be a hindrance and even a danger to a hunter. Imagine being in the bush with ear-pro on, you don't hear the bear approaching behind you...

50 B.M.G.
07-25-2014, 09:28 AM
Within the same scope of personal protection equipment, one could also argue that wearing earplugs or muffs could be a hindrance and even a danger to a hunter. Imagine being in the bush with ear-pro on, you don't hear the bear approaching behind you...

I agree, the argument could be made to that effect.

outattherange
07-25-2014, 11:30 AM
with ranges coming under complaints of noise as a way to shut them down.. it only makes sense to allow sound suppression on a range.

Swampdonkey
07-25-2014, 12:07 PM
Unfortunately, today, such might be a prohibited device [(c) below].

Hence we ought to get the ball rolling with an exemption. Then permits to put them on our muzzles, then hunt with them, then completely deregulate their manufacture, possession and use.

Swampdonkey
07-25-2014, 12:11 PM
With a few LE agencies in Canada now mandating the use of a can on their "patrol carbines" due to OH&S studies and regs, what the civilian market needs to do is to hammer the government with a MASSIVE class action for all the hearing loss they have caused by outlawing a basic piece of personal safety equipment.
If we can get fined for NOT wearing a seat belt or helmet while driving or a PFD while in a boat or not wearing steel toe boots, hard hats, safety glasses etc. while working, I think the judges would see the double edged sword here in the government then fining or imprisoning us for trying to use a piece of personal safety equipment attached to our firearms to protect not only our own hearing but also the hearing of the children.

The mandate of several LE agencies OH&S is that the claim rate for hearing damage is increasing dramatically, so safety equipment is needed to avoid these claims.
I guess some folks hearing is of a much higher value than that of the less favored masses?

I wonder if as many silencers go missing as handcuffs.

RangeBob
07-25-2014, 12:25 PM
Switzerland (nice camera/monitor too)

vs

Canada's "(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0703/guisan/album%204/album%209/eroeffnungsschiessen4_20100618_1358038661.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/0703/guisan/album%204/album%209/eroeffnungsschiessen3_20100618_1817097110.jpg

http://www.erlenacker.ch/files/bilder/schiessanlage/300m/bild2.jpg

http://www.leu-helfenstein.ch/schiessanlagen/images/schallschutztunnel.jpg

http://www.fsg-entlebuch.ch/bilder/fotos/011.JPG

outattherange
07-25-2014, 12:38 PM
Switzerland (nice camera/monitor too)

vs

Canada's "(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,"

who the hell would want to shoot in a tube? talk about taking all the fun out of the sport... unless you're a long range shooter this looks like shit.

JimRowell
07-25-2014, 01:34 PM
I'm dead against any talk of legalizing suppressors. As soon as you get the govt comfortable with the idea, they would be mandated at all ranges except those far away from anywhere. It would be required at the first noise complaint. I'd like to be able to use one but I sure as hell don't want to HAVE to use one. It would ruin handgun shooting esp ipsc.

We have many more important things to work on. Drop it, please.

Spectre
07-25-2014, 01:44 PM
Should be as second nature as all common sense PPE.

I have taken a few blasts to the ears in my time - no fun at all. It took two days for the ringing to stop and the hearing to come back after a buddy let go with his ported 30-06. I have suffered damage, some self inflicted, with hearing never to return to 100%

Back in the day we didn't even think about wearing hearing protection; the invincibility of youth. Cans are needed, and are an important tool to use against sport related hearing loss. I now wear custom fit plugs and muffs no matter what I am shooting, and enforce the rest of my family does as well. Too little too late for me, but they can reap the benefits of lessons physically purchased by me (and my ears).

Where do I sign up to get this done in our wonderful country?

50 B.M.G.
07-25-2014, 01:57 PM
who the hell would want to shoot in a tube? talk about taking all the fun out of the sport... unless you're a long range shooter this looks like shit.

I AM a long range shooter and that holds no appeal to me either. A can on the other hand makes all shooting much more civilized, especially in either shooter/spotter situations or when you favor larger calibers and shoot at a range where fudds are known to frequent.

outattherange
07-25-2014, 02:04 PM
I AM a long range shooter and that holds no appeal to me either. A can on the other hand makes all shooting much more civilized, especially in either shooter/spotter situations or when you favor larger calibers and shoot at a range where fudds are known to frequent.

AMEN

BrotherRockeye
07-25-2014, 03:36 PM
Loud noise like a muzzle blast is a big one for new shooters and can indirectly cause the dreaded flinch.

I have my bench set up so the muzzle is outside and the shooter inside, muffs hang on the wall right beside the bench.

I will echo the sentiment that I would like the option to use a can and not be required to...

canthitathing
07-25-2014, 03:57 PM
A course- No. Use should be attached to a RPAL. I would support the use for several reasons.
1- prevention of damage to hearing.
2- saving the RCMP time from responding to shots fired in areas that you can lawfully discharge a firearm, just because someone is hearing someone else, out target practicing.
3- many outdoor ranges are being closed due to noise complaints.

^^ THIS. A local (mostly skeet/trap) club, having existed for many years, has had newbie A-hole residential diks have the local no-balls council impose restrictions on the club including reduced hours and increased (expensive) noise abatement measures. What better, relatively inexpensive, noise abatement than supressors? The RCMP and power-monger municipal 'politicians' watch too many James Bond movies where everyone annihilates everyone else with supressed PPK's.

Swampdonkey
07-25-2014, 05:49 PM
I'm dead against any talk of legalizing suppressors. As soon as you get the govt comfortable with the idea, they would be mandated at all ranges except those far away from anywhere. It would be required at the first noise complaint. I'd like to be able to use one but I sure as hell don't want to HAVE to use one. It would ruin handgun shooting esp ipsc.

We have many more important things to work on. Drop it, please.

Antique and collector guns will be exempt, and existing guns grandfathered.

Sadosubliminal
07-25-2014, 08:10 PM
100% for legalizing the voluntary use of suppressors, 100% against making suppressors mandatory anywhere. Should be up to the individual. We've made it this many years without them, no need to force them on anyone.

88 louie
07-26-2014, 11:56 AM
"The RCMP and power-monger municipal 'politicians' watch too many James Bond movies where everyone annihilates everyone else with supressed PPK's."

So true, especially for the liberals and anti's. Just to add to my previous post, I agree with many of your concerns about over involvement by the gov. But until the politicians understand they work for the people, they will carry on feeling that they are above the people, and we cant be trusted. You know how they work. Good for the goose but not for the gander.

Camo tung
07-26-2014, 12:27 PM
Watch and wish...

http://youtu.be/HFFAcHQE8xg

ReignCzech
07-26-2014, 12:43 PM
I would be for it! It would be far better if we could. Less range noise and better for the ears

^^^
absolutely.

use of suppressors at ranges and gun clubs would definitely cut down on the Db levels of noise pollution that numerous municipalities and cities have had meetings / minutes on shutting down ranges that are in now developed areas as growth spread out to and around such ranges.

It would bring more income in to gunsmiths / firearms industry, for fitting, and customization.

As for the private individual, well, there is some very important information in regards to suppressors and use, ( for the layman / newbie )... so a course would be an avenue to both educate, maybe go towards a licencing / tax stamp to register for use to gun owners / firearm licensed person. and also some possible revenue to the CFC and CFP, maybe provincial CFO offices, or if NFA and CSSA get tied into the CFO's then through them possibly in several say percentages of avenues regarding revenues.


A course- No. Use should be attached to a RPAL. I would support the use for several reasons.
1- prevention of damage to hearing.
2- saving the RCMP time from responding to shots fired in areas that you can lawfully discharge a firearm, just because someone is hearing someone else, out target practicing.
3- many outdoor ranges are being closed due to noise complaints.

^^^
All these reasons and assistances as well.

Suppressors aren't all that much in the engineering dept, ( though yes I know there's serous R&D with them for MIL-LE and companies ) even though legally classed as prohibited devices in canada ( for 'general' civilians population ) anyone with a handful of brain cells can go to Rona and spend @ 40 bucks and have a decent durable multi use suppressor after @ 30-60 mins of work and application. Thats not even touching the issues and ease of making of solvent trap adaptations.

or roll up a pillow wrapped in tuck tape taped on the business end.

So,.. canada and it's digressed, contradictory, and patched confusing Firearms act, C.C., and prohibitions should be getting on modernization of oh,.. just about the whole thing ( as everyone knows ) and get suppressors included in recreational, private, and professional use widely available, legally.

"cuz' everyone knows the few things mentioned above, anyone can do, and those who say F-it to laws, because the LE has to catch you, do so anyways.

Suputin
07-26-2014, 02:01 PM
I'm dead against any talk of legalizing suppressors. As soon as you get the govt comfortable with the idea, they would be mandated at all ranges except those far away from anywhere. It would be required at the first noise complaint. I'd like to be able to use one but I sure as hell don't want to HAVE to use one. It would ruin handgun shooting esp ipsc.

We have many more important things to work on. Drop it, please.

I see we made it a grand total of FOUR pages before Chicken Little reared up to exclaim how scared he is.

No jurisdiction on the planet that allows sound suppressors has ever mandated the use of sound suppressors. I would suggest that you drop it and stop giving the anti's ideas.

Even IF sound suppressors were mandated, so what? Shooting without them is downright uncivilized.

88 louie
07-26-2014, 05:30 PM
This is an awesome article, 25 pages, but worth it. I wonder if the article could be or is being re-sent to the gov. After the announcement july 23/14 to change legislation for firearm owners. I hope so, Anxious to see what develops in the fall.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

Here's an update regarding the above article.
The author did the article for his thesis. He owns a company that does R&D and manufactures suppressors for sale to LE & military. He cannot send the article to the gov. As it would be a conflict of interest. However, we the public can. The article has data from recognized Canadian institutions : OH&S, WCB, RCMP. As well as many other institutions around the world. Undeniable evidence that suppressors are better for society. If some of you read the article, the data will surprise you. I will be adding that article in a letter I found in the letters thread. The gov. announced to make changes, and will be discussing the issues over the next few months. Please keep sending letters with your concerns so they don't go to sleep or think that we have.

Canuck257
07-27-2014, 01:49 PM
I agree that government works in small incremental steps when it comes to change but I'm not convinced that a safety course is the right first step. Maybe we should seek suppressors for non-restricted firearms only to start with, establish evidence of the benefits here in Canada, then go for restricted suppressors???

bettercallsaul
07-27-2014, 04:30 PM
I'm dead against any talk of legalizing suppressors. As soon as you get the govt comfortable with the idea, they would be mandated at all ranges except those far away from anywhere. It would be required at the first noise complaint. I'd like to be able to use one but I sure as hell don't want to HAVE to use one. It would ruin handgun shooting esp ipsc.

We have many more important things to work on. Drop it, please.

I'm sorry but that's a terrible reason not to want suppressors legalized.

Big difference between allowing us to use them, and mandating we MUST use them.

Suppressors are attainable, and I want one. So I'll forget your unfounded fears.

x0ra
07-27-2014, 07:26 PM
No jurisdiction on the planet that allows sound suppressors has ever mandated the use of sound suppressors. I would suggest that you drop it and stop giving the anti's ideas.
Canada would certainly be capable of being the first country doing so.

x0ra
07-27-2014, 07:27 PM
I agree that government works in small incremental steps when it comes to change [...]
The libtards generally works in huge incremental changes when working on restriction of individual rights.

Swampdonkey
07-27-2014, 08:15 PM
The libtards generally works in huge incremental changes when working on restriction of individual rights.

Fair enough.

Suputin
07-27-2014, 11:25 PM
Canada would certainly be capable of being the first country doing so.

So what, even if they did? Given the choice, I'd never shoot loud ever again. Once you have spent some quality time with cans, the old way becomes simply uncivilized.

JimRowell
07-28-2014, 02:37 PM
So what, even if they did? Given the choice, I'd never shoot loud ever again. Once you have spent some quality time with cans, the old way becomes simply uncivilized.

They are for dedicated bench guns or hitting squirrels without your neighbour knowing about it. That's about it. They would suck in the ontario bush and would ruin action shooting. Most people who think they'd like one would quickly lose interest. It's a mistake to go there.

Shorty
07-28-2014, 02:53 PM
I would love the option to go suppressed.
I am not sure how the government could mandate usage at ranges - have you seen the price of suppressor? While not impossible, I really think it wouldn't happen.

It's the same old fight we face. They say guns are bad. The numbers are on our side though. They say supressors are assassins tools - again, facts are with us. It's fact vs emotion.

JimRowell
07-28-2014, 03:08 PM
I would love the option to go suppressed.
I am not sure how the government could mandate usage at ranges - have you seen the price of suppressor? While not impossible, I really think it wouldn't happen.

It's the same old fight we face. They say guns are bad. The numbers are on our side though. They say supressors are assassins tools - again, facts are with us. It's fact vs emotion.

Ranges are being closed folks. It's happening. There's a shotgun range near me that's decades old and they've been told to get down to 50 db or close. They are fighting but if silencers were an option, the club would have no choice but to require the use. If they went to court the judge would say use them or close. As it is they can at least offer to put up walls and a judge would say the neighbors should accept some noise.

All you are doing is offering the antis a bunch of help for the option of using a toy.

Strewth
07-28-2014, 03:30 PM
^50db? Are you sure? That's very quiet?
Which range?
The silly neighbours should accept some noise when they live near a gun club.

Zinilin
07-28-2014, 03:39 PM
Canada's "(c) a device or contrivance designed or intended to muffle or stop the sound or report of a firearm,"

The tubes and other sound dampening measures pictured are not prohibited devices in Canada, in fact these type of sound abatement measures in a shooting range are specifically mentioned in the RCMP Range Construction Guidelines:
--
Where practical, the use of firing point separators between adjacent firing lanes is
recommended. These separators are intended to provide each shooter with a defined firing
area. They also serve to protect the shooters from being hit by ejected (fired) cartridge cases
originating from other lanes. If employed, the separators:
- Shall not significantly obstruct air flow;
- Can be fitted with small tables to assist shooters; and,
- Can be fitted with sound-absorbing materials to dampen the firing noises.
---
They are part of the range not part of or part of the use of the firearm.

On the images, can you tell me where you found the images and if there is any acoustic dampening data available, and if these are home built or a commercial product.

One other thing. I have been in Zurich on one of the 'qualifying days' where much of the population does their mandatory target shoot qualification. It is surreal, having lunch on the patio with the sound of gunfire coming from all directions. It goes on all day everywhere in the city, and I guess the country.

topher
07-28-2014, 04:15 PM
^50db? Are you sure? That's very quiet?
Which range?
The silly neighbours should accept some noise when they live near a gun club.

I hears Uxbridge shotgun club or something like that.50db is unreasonable.. A typical office is 60....
Typic fire alarm system is between 75-80db.. 75,min.. (I do this for a living)

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

JimRowell
07-28-2014, 06:44 PM
^50db? Are you sure? That's very quiet?
Which range?
The silly neighbours should accept some noise when they live near a gun club.

I know it's ridiculous but that's their target according to the town. They've been given a long time frame but welcome to the future.
They are not an isolated case. Barrie, Sharon, Oshawa, Silverdale and Aurora, off the top of my head, are all facing the issue regularly.

x0ra
07-28-2014, 07:17 PM
I am not sure how the government could mandate usage at ranges - have you seen the price of suppressor? While not impossible, I really think it wouldn't happen.
There is just not enough demand because of the legal hassle. Legalize suppressor, and I bet you we'll see De Lisle-like semi-auto carbine off the selves within 5 years around $1k

Swampdonkey
07-28-2014, 08:33 PM
Zinlin, could you provide a link? My Fish & Game club is doing upgrades this winter; I'd like to inform the board.

Zinilin
07-28-2014, 09:22 PM
Zinlin, could you provide a link? My Fish & Game club is doing upgrades this winter; I'd like to inform the board.
I can't find the nice pdf on line anywhere anymore. This is a link to a ATI release (poor photocopy) https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/RCMP%20ATI%20Response%20%20-%20Range%20Design%20and%20Construction%20Guideline s%20-%20Jan%2017%202014.pdf
It looks very similar to what I have.
The 'official' one you would need to get from your CFO, like everything else seems to be with the firearms program, only 'paper' is official.
Here is the Federal link to order the paper RCMP publication http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/86721/publication.html.

The pdf I have is almost identical to the paper one you can get from the Ontario CFO. (Only the cover and some parts of the intro and page numbers differ)

.

Strewth
07-28-2014, 09:24 PM
I know it's ridiculous but that's their target according to the town. They've been given a long time frame but welcome to the future.
They are not an isolated case. Barrie, Sharon, Oshawa, Silverdale and Aurora, off the top of my head, are all facing the issue regularly.

Weird. A diesel pick-up truck driving by is noisier, let alone a semi. I wonder where they pulled that number from?

blaxsun
07-28-2014, 09:43 PM
I have seen someone improperly mount a 5.56 suppressor and bazinga when the can explodes and sends pieces everywhere...
They're not that difficult to mount, so maybe this is Darwinism in action... Then again, even if they were allowed the vast majority would balk at the $1,000+ price tag and instead head to the oil filter section of Canadian Tire...

Swampdonkey
07-28-2014, 09:48 PM
I can't find the nice pdf on line anywhere anymore. This is a link to a ATI release (poor photocopy) https://nfa.ca/sites/default/files/RCMP%20ATI%20Response%20%20-%20Range%20Design%20and%20Construction%20Guideline s%20-%20Jan%2017%202014.pdf
It looks very similar to what I have.
The 'official' one you would need to get from your CFO, like everything else seems to be with the firearms program, only 'paper' is official.
Here is the Federal link to order the paper RCMP publication http://publications.gc.ca/site/eng/86721/publication.html.

The pdf I have is almost identical to the paper one you can get from the Ontario CFO. (Only the cover and some parts of the intro and page numbers differ)

.

Many thanks.

88 louie
07-28-2014, 11:28 PM
They're not that difficult to mount, so maybe this is Darwinism in action... Then again, even if they were allowed the vast majority would balk at the $1,000+ price tag and instead head to the oil filter section of Canadian Tire...

I did a little research, using an oil filter is really only good for .22. If you used it with a higher caliber(5.56), it will work temporarily, but the pressure is too much, causing the inner walls to fracture. When that starts happening, with a semi-auto, little pieces of the filter start showing up in the action of the rifle. Basically not recommended, better to spend the money for a proper 5.56 suppressor, if we ever get the chance...

Suputin
07-28-2014, 11:38 PM
They are for dedicated bench guns or hitting squirrels without your neighbour knowing about it. That's about it. They would suck in the ontario bush and would ruin action shooting. Most people who think they'd like one would quickly lose interest. It's a mistake to go there.

I probably have more experience with these things than anyone in the country and I'd have to agree with you. Properly designed you'd hardly notice a can on the end of a short barreled rifle.

Mandated suppressor use would hardly impact action shooting sports at all.

As to the cost, US suppressors are only expensive due to the technological demands of that particular market. Where suppressors are uncontrolled, prices are typically quite low.

Sabio
07-29-2014, 12:26 AM
We need people to Sue the government for hearing loss because they were not allowed to use a sound suppressor.

blaxsun
07-29-2014, 04:14 AM
We need people to Sue the government for hearing loss because they were not allowed to use a sound suppressor.
What?

JimRowell
07-29-2014, 05:48 AM
Weird. A diesel pick-up truck driving by is noisier, let alone a semi. I wonder where they pulled that number from?

I could suggest where they pulled it from. I think you already know. ;-D

JimRowell
07-29-2014, 06:52 AM
I probably have more experience with these things than anyone in the country and I'd have to agree with you. Properly designed you'd hardly notice a can on the end of a short barreled rifle.

Mandated suppressor use would hardly impact action shooting sports at all.

As to the cost, US suppressors are only expensive due to the technological demands of that particular market. Where suppressors are uncontrolled, prices are typically quite low.

I presume you meant to say you DISagree with me. Fair enough. A Gem-Tech GM-9 is 6.5" long x 1.25" diameter and weighs 5 oz plus the weight of the mount. I'm supposed to draw that from a holster and do fast transitions from target to target? How is that not going to change IPSC? How about IDPA where the whole point is to draw from concealed carry?

You're not not just asking Indy cars to install mufflers; you're asking them to pull a trailer too.

50 B.M.G.
07-29-2014, 07:25 AM
Weird. A diesel pick-up truck driving by is noisier, let alone a semi. I wonder where they pulled that number from?

I can tell you. The normal place to get facts. These fact locations usually have traces of toilet paper attached.

Fredo
07-29-2014, 08:29 AM
I'd love one for my .338 LM. Less noise, less coyotes.

ReignCzech
07-29-2014, 09:13 AM
I can tell you. The normal place to get facts. These fact locations usually have traces of toilet paper attached.

hah, hah, ha.... kerrnack!

ReignCzech
07-29-2014, 09:14 AM
I'd love one for my .338 LM. Less noise, less coyotes.

http://www.canadiantactical.ca/

lets see all the grins from either memories, or along with these guys... heh, heh, good times.

GTA Dragon
07-29-2014, 03:56 PM
Great Thread, I believe that it should be an option, it will save our clubs, ranges etc. I would use one in a heartbeat, you would likely see more shooters entering the sport, I like the boom but when it scares the ladies they don't want to shoot anymore. Except for my lady but she is a shooter, the daughter I think is a bit timid of the boom.

Suputin
07-29-2014, 06:27 PM
I presume you meant to say you DISagree with me. Fair enough. A Gem-Tech GM-9 is 6.5" long x 1.25" diameter and weighs 5 oz plus the weight of the mount. I'm supposed to draw that from a holster and do fast transitions from target to target? How is that not going to change IPSC? How about IDPA where the whole point is to draw from concealed carry?

You're not not just asking Indy cars to install mufflers; you're asking them to pull a trailer too.

Until you have actually handled and shot a suppressed pistol I would suggest you are speaking from a position of ignorance. An aluminum pistol can is not nearly as onerous as you might imagine. The holster issue can be solved fairly easily. I have a holster purchased specifically because it allows the use of a suppressor.

Granted, drawing from concealment may be an issue but I am sure some smart people can manage to adapt and overcome if pressed.

Suputin
07-29-2014, 06:30 PM
I'd love one for my .338 LM. Less noise, less coyotes.

A hearing safe 338 LM can is a freaky experience. We are so conditioned to the earsplitting blast inherent in such a large caliber that it takes a bit to wrap your head around standing next to a large caliber rifle with no hearing protection. I kept thinking I'd get my ears blown out but it was totally comfortable.

Drache
07-29-2014, 06:45 PM
A hearing safe 338 LM can is a freaky experience. We are so conditioned to the earsplitting blast inherent in such a large caliber that it takes a bit to wrap your head around standing next to a large caliber rifle with no hearing protection. I kept thinking I'd get my ears blown out but it was totally comfortable.

First time I got to use one with 5.56 I actually thought I had a squib load :D

JimRowell
07-29-2014, 08:26 PM
Until you have actually handled and shot a suppressed pistol I would suggest you are speaking from a position of ignorance. An aluminum pistol can is not nearly as onerous as you might imagine. The holster issue can be solved fairly easily. I have a holster purchased specifically because it allows the use of a suppressor.

Granted, drawing from concealment may be an issue but I am sure some smart people can manage to adapt and overcome if pressed.

I've said my piece.

GTA Dragon
07-31-2014, 03:33 PM
If everyone in the action shooting sports had a suppressor would it not make it more competitive? would it not drive more innovation in the sport? In racing or automotive sports there are restrictions, the more rules the more competition becomes interesting, just because IPSC and IDPA have been the same for decades. not a big deal, change some holsters, change some rules, it will evolve just like everything else on this planet has too.

In my experience no one wants to change or operate outside of the box, for those who do the upper hand is rewarded.

ReignCzech
07-31-2014, 05:06 PM
First time I got to use one with 5.56 I actually thought I had a squib load :D

I thought the same, more so with MP5SD, P226 suppressed, the timberwolf and macmillan tac .50 are impressively suppressed, huge difference in Db and felt recoil, from breaks to cans.
LMG and GPMG are impressive suppressed also.
The sterling C1 suppressed was fun also.

JimRowell
08-01-2014, 09:28 AM
If everyone in the action shooting sports had a suppressor would it not make it more competitive? would it not drive more innovation in the sport? In racing or automotive sports there are restrictions, the more rules the more competition becomes interesting, just because IPSC and IDPA have been the same for decades. not a big deal, change some holsters, change some rules, it will evolve just like everything else on this planet has too.

In my experience no one wants to change or operate outside of the box, for those who do the upper hand is rewarded.

Nothing wrong with your logic but IPSC is an international sport with a strong and independent following in the U.S. via USPSA. Using suppressors would put us completely out of synch and incompatible with the rest of the world. Bear in mind that there is no great interest (that I'm aware of) in the U.S. for using suppressors in USPSA. Interestingly, the use of suppressors is largely legal there.

Being forced to use suppressors here would screw us for being normal members of IPSC. Right now, under IPSC rules, suppressors are only usable in Open division and are considered to be compensators.

Drache
08-01-2014, 09:43 AM
I thought the same, more so with MP5SD

;)

http://i.imgur.com/GvpByln.jpg

awndray
03-31-2015, 06:09 AM
Sometimes players in an industry have to take on the role of evangelists in order to open up crowds of new customers. The suppressor market – an accessory category within the firearms industry – is one space that’s seen growth as people tune in to the benefits of making rifles, shotguns and pistols less noisy.

Also known as “silencers,” suppressors have been around since the early 1900s. Traditionally they are cylindrical devices filled with layers of metal baffles, or dividers, which slow the gases that escape a gun barrel when a bullet is fired and muffle the sound. Are they as quiet as often depicted in popular action films? No, but they do reduce the volume of a pistol, rifle or shotgun blast enough to protect the hearing of hunters and shooting enthusiasts, which may explain why suppressors have seen a surge recently despite critics’ arguments that quieter gunfire would benefit the criminal element.

Though it’s hard to find exact figures, Americans probably bought between 100,000 and 200,000 suppressors last year, according to industry insider estimates. In 2014 the number of such products registered by civilians with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms surpassed 571,000—that’s a 58% increase since 2012. Last year the number of people waiting to have their suppressor permits approved surpassed 80,000.

Liberty Suppressors – a small manufacturer based in Trenton, Georgia – has noticed the increase in interest. Founded in 2004 by husband-wife team David and Teresa Saylors, the 16-person company has enjoyed an average 2X growth every year of operation and David Saylors says the push to educate gun owners, coupled with the ease of research the internet provides, will continue to spur the market, which he says is vast and largely untapped given the number of gun owners in the country compared with the number of suppressors in circulation. “It’s immediately appealing to a person who fires firearms routinely at a practice range,” says Saylors. “Once they shoot a suppressed firearm, it’s so much more pleasant they don’t want to go back to unsuppressed guns.”

Established companies in the firearms industry could get into the game more actively. Top tier suppressor firm, AAC, was acquired by Remington, and last year Switzerland-based gun maker Sig Sauer emerged with its own line of products after hiring AAC founder Kevin Brittingham, as well as designer Ethan Lessard, to spearhead their entrance into the space. According to Casey Foster, director of special projects for 22 year-old suppressor company GEMTECH, partnerships are likely the way larger firms in the industry will enter the market, rather than engineering their own designs from scratch. “I do not think that you’re going to see the majority of rifle manufacturers even attempt to get into this—it’s simply too complex.”

Working to educate consumers and legislators to the benefits of suppressor technology is the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the niche industry’s mouthpiece formed in 2011, made up of manufacturers, dealers and consumers. “In order to expand our market we have to break down a lot of misconceptions,” says Knox Williams, president of the organization. “For most people, their only exposure to suppressors is through Hollywood. They see it in the movies, they think they know what they sound like, they think they know how they function, they think they’re these tiny little gadgets that you can just put on any gun that will completely silence the firearm. That’s not the case at all.”

The ASA has connected to about 65 dealers nationwide to whom it sends educational material about suppressors. By the end of the year Williams says he expects to expand that network to 500. But informing sellers and consumers also takes hands on work. “A lot of it is just sheer exposure,” he said. “Hitting public events, taking people out and shooting with suppressors.”

But education isn’t the only hardship, suppressor makers also have an uphill climb due to legal barriers to sale. To buy a silencer in the United States, a shooter must live in one of the 39 states* in which silencers are legal to own, meet age requirements, be eligible to purchase a firearm, pay a $200 transfer tax and pass a background check with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms that often takes between four and nine months to process due to backlog.

“We do a lot of legislative demonstrations,” says Williams. “We’ll go out to different states, federal legislators or regulatory groups, and we’ll take them out shooting and let them see and hear these things for themselves.” Last year five states – Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana and Ohio – legalized hunting with suppressors, thanks in large part to the efforts of the ASA and other advocacy groups.**

“I think it would take a little bit of time for our products to gain a foothold in their markets, but the suppressor technology in the U.S. is far more advanced than anywhere else in the world,” says Williams. “That said, you can go into a hardware store in the UK and buy a suppressor and you can do it far more easily than you can buy the gun for it.”

Should the State Department decline to give the suppressor industry what it wants, the industry will continue to lobby legislators for support, says Williams. “Whether we like it or not, this is a politically heated topic.”

*the first iteration of this post stated suppressors were legal in 40 states.

**the first iteration of this post stated the National Firearms Act Freedom Alliance had been part of the push to change suppressor laws in five states last year.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2015/03/29/guns-and-money-the-silencer-industry-seeks-to-break-down-barriers/

Malus
03-31-2015, 08:51 AM
Common sense would dictate that suppressors should be a requirement around residential areas, but, there is no common sense when it comes to Canadian firearms laws so the point is mute (and so is the discussion really). Your never gonna get them (government/law enforcement) to capitulate on this subject. Anything that would encourage more people to get guns ( especially ladies whom don't like the loud bang) will not be considered. The program is to restrict your "rights", not give them back to you......

Suputin
04-01-2015, 05:33 PM
Common sense would dictate that suppressors should be a requirement around residential areas, but, there is no common sense when it comes to Canadian firearms laws so the point is mute (and so is the discussion really). Your never gonna get them (government/law enforcement) to capitulate on this subject. Anything that would encourage more people to get guns ( especially ladies whom don't like the loud bang) will not be considered. The program is to restrict your "rights", not give them back to you......

I disagree. They may not willingly give it up but they could be forced to via the courts. UK shooters sued and won the right to use suppressors and it turns out the law they used is nearly exactly the same in Canada.

Blkrfl
05-22-2015, 03:27 PM
I disagree. They may not willingly give it up but they could be forced to via the courts. UK shooters sued and won the right to use suppressors and it turns out the law they used is nearly exactly the same in Canada.

I didn't realize they sued the government. Interesting. What was their argument?

Suputin
05-24-2015, 06:35 PM
I didn't realize they sued the government. Interesting. What was their argument?

The ban violated the OH&S Act. Thus people who must use firearms for work were having being forced to be exposed to damaging levels of noise in violation to the OH&S laws. Turns out our laws are virtually the same.

wolver
05-24-2015, 11:51 PM
I paid good money for some of my hard to get ammo. So I want the loudest bang for my buck! What next, recoil suppressors?

Blkrfl
05-25-2015, 08:31 PM
http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/Images/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

Thought this was an interesting read if anyone interested

RangeBob
05-25-2015, 10:40 PM
http://members.shaw.ca/cronhelm/Images/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

Thought this was an interesting read if anyone interested

I believe it was written by Suputin (post #86 in this thread).
I consider Suputin to be my suppressor expert.

Strangeday
05-26-2015, 02:47 PM
I have put thousands of rounds through commercially manufactured suppressors. Mostly in .22lr, 9mm, 45acp and 5.56mm. They are wildly misunderstood pieces of equipment. They are not super stealthy death rays and anyone who has used one will tell you than using one in a confined space will still give your head a nasty ring. They are great for reducing noise....which is what they were intended for. Just like a muffler on your car or motorcycle. I mean why would anyone want to silence an internal combustion engine? The reality for suppressors is that the perception has become the reality.

Suputin
05-27-2015, 05:30 PM
I have put thousands of rounds through commercially manufactured suppressors. Mostly in .22lr, 9mm, 45acp and 5.56mm. They are wildly misunderstood pieces of equipment. They are not super stealthy death rays and anyone who has used one will tell you than using one in a confined space will still give your head a nasty ring.

Well they can be amazingly stealthy ... depending on caliber, configuration etc. Shooting supersonic stuff indoors, the majority of the noise you are being exposed to is the supersonic crack, which is considerably louder than the muzzle blast.



They are great for reducing noise....which is what they were intended for. Just like a muffler on your car or motorcycle. I mean why would anyone want to silence an internal combustion engine? The reality for suppressors is that the perception has become the reality.

I think that perception long predated any real information and that has just stuck around because we have no real way of changing it or exposing people to the truth.

Curt
05-28-2015, 05:32 AM
i run a strait pipe exhaust, so people know i am operating a powerful peace of machinery that could cause bodily harm, if somebody was to steal my truck. and then people complain my exhaust is too loud, when i just have public safety in mind!!

dHb
06-02-2015, 07:35 PM
Good airgun silencers can make the report quieter than the hammer strike. Sounds like a mouse farting.

RangeBob
07-19-2015, 05:06 PM
EDIT: See Suputin's comment below.



Suppressors, a public health and safety benefit.
Jul 17, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pM47qQ7Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pM47qQ7Qk



EDIT: See Suputin's comment below.

RangeBob
07-19-2015, 11:59 PM
According to "Firearms Commerce in the United States Annual Statistical Update 2014" by the BATFE
there are 571,750 registered suppressor's in the USA.
They're very popular in Texas and Georgia.

CLW .45
07-20-2015, 09:16 AM
If you want to use suppressors, push for suppressor use.

Government will come up with enough stupid restrictions on their own.

They don't need suggestions from us.

Suputin
07-20-2015, 05:53 PM
Suppressors, a public health and safety benefit.
Jul 17, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pM47qQ7Qk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36pM47qQ7Qk

Nothing new. But well said.

He doesn't know what he is talking about. The limit for hearing damage from impulse noise is 140 dB. Virtually no silencers are capable of reducing centerfire rifle noise to less than 130 dB with most of them being in the 135-140 dB range.

His using 120 dB as a loud shot is way out of whack. I can tell you from loads of personal experience that 120 dB gunshot is spooky quiet. Consider that the noise level of dropping the bolt on an empty chamber is generally in the 115 dB range.

If anyone knows them, have them contact me and I will help them with actual noise data of suppressed firearms or any other info they need.

Swampdonkey
07-20-2015, 07:38 PM
The generators at my rig are 115db in the same shack, and I feel sick if I'm in there without earplugs.

RangeBob
07-20-2015, 08:12 PM
He doesn't know what he is talking about.
Oh.


If anyone knows them, have them contact me
https://www.hoplitetacticalsupplies.com/contact

Suputin
07-21-2015, 04:26 PM
The generators at my rig are 115db in the same shack, and I feel sick if I'm in there without earplugs.

Yes but that is constant noise. Gunshots are impulse noise on the order of microseconds. Big difference.

I use the same sound meter as suppressor experts like Phil Dater and Alan Paulson and utilize the same MIL Std test procedure. If you really don't beleive me and want to come to Calgary I'd be happy to show you in person.

Suputin
07-21-2015, 04:27 PM
Oh.


https://www.hoplitetacticalsupplies.com/contact

Yeah I did that. Just figured maybe someone here knew them personally.

50 B.M.G.
07-22-2015, 09:00 AM
Weird. A diesel pick-up truck driving by is noisier, let alone a semi. I wonder where they pulled that number from?

Same place all anti facts come from, out of their arse.

awndray
04-26-2016, 10:38 AM
https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/13094120_1127395780644216_4463673101801532018_n.jp g?oh=e91889a97011dcb3a2736f3e01ee522c&oe=57B9AEDF

RimfireFans
04-26-2016, 03:46 PM
I haven't read through the whole thread, but the one thing I am always annoyed by is when someone calls it a "silencer". I feel like I need to yell at them.

We, as gun owners, must educate people and teach them the proper term is suppressor and intelligently describe what a suppressor does.

Flashpoint
04-26-2016, 10:17 PM
Hah. A silencer is something you put on a car, if you're in the United Kingdom!

Suputin
04-27-2016, 11:25 PM
I haven't read through the whole thread, but the one thing I am always annoyed by is when someone calls it a "silencer". I feel like I need to yell at them.

We, as gun owners, must educate people and teach them the proper term is suppressor and intelligently describe what a suppressor does.

http://cdn.paladin-press.com/images/large/SILENCER.jpg http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CXO2ZQxgL._AC_UL320_SR238,320_.jpg

RealDeckard
04-28-2016, 08:05 AM
Silencer/Suppressor is like Mag/Clip. Who TF cares?

RobertMcC
04-28-2016, 01:27 PM
I love to have a suppressor. Mainly be using it on Airguns.

Doug_M
04-28-2016, 01:39 PM
Silencer/Suppressor is like Mag/Clip. Who TF cares?

Don't you mean Silencer/Suppresor is like Clip/Mag? jk

RealDeckard
04-28-2016, 02:31 PM
I mean that it's a discussion people have to beat their chests while nobody actually cares but them.

Suputin
04-30-2016, 01:59 PM
I mean that it's a discussion people have to beat their chests while nobody actually cares but them.

I find the people most fanatical about the "silencer" terminology are those who have never actually seen one in real life. Those who use them regularly interchange the terms, "suppressor", "silencer" and "can" all the time.

wolver
04-30-2016, 03:40 PM
who the hell would want to shoot in a tube? talk about taking all the fun out of the sport

That's the whole idea.

Mobusten
04-30-2016, 05:43 PM
I don't understand how suppressors can be had in the UK, New Zealand etc. but we can't make a compelling case for them here... Damn Hollywood.

wolver
05-03-2016, 05:35 PM
I don't understand how suppressors can be had in the UK, New Zealand etc. but we can't make a compelling case for them here... Damn Hollywood.

You think they haven't heard of Hollywood over there?

Mobusten
05-03-2016, 06:31 PM
You think they haven't heard of Hollywood over there?

You think Hollywood didn't play an enormous role in their ban here?

Laicosin
05-09-2016, 02:54 PM
It really is quite a silly issue. The gun is the dangerous part, the suppressor just saves the shooter's hearing. The RCMP knows the difference between a hollywood "silencer" and a real-world suppressor, they just want to keep as much out of the hands of the public as possible. If they are the only one with guns then they can't get shot or some such BS...

Anyway, using sub-sonic loads you can get a rifle to be surprisingly quiet and that is the argument against them for some reason. I guess hunters and gun owners are just supposed to hazard hearing loss...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taL7Vmip39s

Suputin
05-09-2016, 08:42 PM
You think Hollywood didn't play an enormous role in their ban here?

The ban likely dates from the 1930's or thereabouts so I don't think Hollywierd had much to do with it.

Suputin
05-09-2016, 08:52 PM
It really is quite a silly issue. The gun is the dangerous part, the suppressor just saves the shooter's hearing. The RCMP knows the difference between a hollywood "silencer" and a real-world suppressor, they just want to keep as much out of the hands of the public as possible. If they are the only one with guns then they can't get shot or some such BS...

Anyway, using sub-sonic loads you can get a rifle to be surprisingly quiet and that is the argument against them for some reason. I guess hunters and gun owners are just supposed to hazard hearing loss...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taL7Vmip39s


The subsonic argument is a bit of a red herring because dropping from supersonic to subsonic in a rifle cartridge requires specialized ammo and has a massive reduction in range, accuracy and trajectory and terminal ballistics. Subsonic rifle cartridges are really more of a sideshow than anything else.

Mobusten
05-09-2016, 09:03 PM
The ban likely dates from the 1930's or thereabouts so I don't think Hollywierd had much to do with it.

Aaaaand I take it you have a source? Or are you just guessing...

Either way, there's no question movies have an effect on making peoples minds up for them. Like a large portion of the public who know nothing about firearms or suppressors are pretty much by default on the side of "no suppressors". With their only exposure being Hollywood movie assassins and gangsters, we stand less of a chance of having them removed from prohibited status.

Suputin
05-10-2016, 03:21 PM
Aaaaand I take it you have a source? Or are you just guessing...

From the research I did on the subject, I could not find a definitive date that the silencer ban was inserted into the Criminal Code. It exists with the ban of other notorious items like switchblades and brass knuckles. The ban could have been initiated as late as the 1950's but it is certainly not something recent. It has existed in CDN law for a very long time.

Mobusten
05-10-2016, 05:22 PM
From the research I did on the subject, I could not find a definitive date that the silencer ban was inserted into the Criminal Code. It exists with the ban of other notorious items like switchblades and brass knuckles. The ban could have been initiated as late as the 1950's but it is certainly not something recent. It has existed in CDN law for a very long time.

Hollywood isn't something recent either. At least as old as the 30's.

Not to mention things like this old timey radio show called "The Silencer" narrated by Orson Welles.

https://soundcloud.com/cjsw-90-9-fm/retrospector-episode-3

"Now this silencer, made to fit an Army rifle, made for a killer, for striking unseen and unheard.. In the dark perhaps."

You don't think this kind of stuff had any affect on some weak minded decision makers in Canada? It's similar to when they prohibited so many scary looking rifles by pointing to them in a magazine.

On a side note, I love these old radio shows lol.

bjsgear
10-28-2016, 04:12 PM
A FEW US STATES HAVE STARTED TO OK, SUPPRESSORS FOR HUNTING AND TARGET SHOOTING, IT DOES PROTECT YOUR HEARING !

Deuce-deuce
10-28-2016, 04:17 PM
Stop yelling... we're talking about suppressors here. Shhhhh.

SIR VEYOR
10-28-2016, 04:51 PM
Stop yelling... we're talking about suppressors here. Shhhhh.

You want to suppress his typing?

CLW .45
10-28-2016, 05:04 PM
Yesterday I made a post about how some people are angry at the idea of a mandatory firearms safety course. I proposed the idea of using this to leverage a "Supressor Safety Course" into the framework of the impending Common Sense Firearms Act that was just announced on the 23rd. This theoretical course would allow those who complete it to possess and acquire supressors, perhaps as an endorsement added onto their PAL, perhaps as an independent certificate. The response I got made it seem like the very idea was offending.

So my question to you the people is this:

Do you support the idea of making a concerted effort to add the ability to take a Supressor Safety Course to the Firearms Act?

Currently it is impossible, full stop not possible no way, for civilians to possess, acquire, or use supressors. Ergo, it seems to me that gaining the ability to do so after completing a safety course would count as an overall victory for us. We gain the ability to use supressors, we lose perhaps some of our sense of being strong independent firearm owners. Am I wrong?

Please discuss.

No!!!

But I do support the idea of removing the concept of prohibited devices from Canadian law.

bettercallsaul
10-29-2016, 12:59 PM
I lurk around the silencer talk forum quite a bit. I'd love to make one. I have access to all the tools and can tig weld stainless.

Suputin
10-29-2016, 03:20 PM
A FEW US STATES HAVE STARTED TO OK, SUPPRESSORS FOR HUNTING AND TARGET SHOOTING, IT DOES PROTECT YOUR HEARING !

A few? Silencers are legal in almost all the states and quite a number of them allow silencers for hunting.


Here is my Legalize Suppressors paper. Share and distribute.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/42597962/LegalizeSuppressors.pdf

Suputin
10-29-2016, 03:26 PM
I lurk around the silencer talk forum quite a bit. I'd love to make one. I have access to all the tools and can tig weld stainless.

Well on a certain level they aren't exactly rocket science. An effective silencer can be made from some pretty basic materials you likely have around the home. Welding is not necessary but is commonly used by US manufacturers for max strength and minimal weight.

Silencers are an interesting topic because they can range from ridiculously simple to incredibly complex. Materials run the gamut from plastic to some of the most exotic steels on the planet. Every designer has a different view on how and what works inside a silencer. Those views range from simple expansion chambers to directed gas flow, supersonic shockwave propagation and coanda flow models. In the long run a silencer is just a kinetic energy trap that slows the release of energy to the environment and there are lots of ways of doing that.