I'm looking into buying a can or two.

Can anyone point me in the right direction for a WA-based dealer?

Hopefully we have one or two floating around, considering the cost of the license versus the fact that they aren't actually allowed to engage in full-tilt NFA stuff.

From Gemtech's website, they list the following:
Cascade Armory (Arlington) - 425-268-7961 Jim is a good guy.
SPG Technologies (West Seattle) - 206-767-7497 <---This is my dealer.  I don't know what he has in stock ready to sell though.  His name is Sean.
Wade's Gun Shop (Bellevue) - 429-649-5995 I saw a few suppressors in the case for sale awhile ago, but I haven't been in the shop lately, so I'm not sure what Wade's has.

I'm sure their are more available.  I like Gemtech suppressors, and I get all of mine from SPG Technologies.

I highly suggest a .22 LR can as a first choice.  It will be "hollywood" quiet, as well as being much more affordable than say, a 5.56 suppressor.

Quoted: From Gemtech's website, they list the following: Cascade Armory (Arlington) - 425-268-7961 Jim is a good guy. SPG Technologies (West Seattle) - 206-767-7497 <---This is my dealer.  I don't know what he has in stock ready to sell though.  His name is Sean. Wade's Gun Shop (Bellevue) - 429-649-5995 I saw a few suppressors in the case for sale awhile ago, but I haven't been in the shop lately, so I'm not sure what Wade's has. I'm sure their are more available.  I like Gemtech suppressors, and I get all of mine from SPG Technologies. I highly suggest a .22 LR can as a first choice.  It will be "hollywood" quiet, as well as being much more affordable than say, a 5.56 suppressor.

Scott,

Thanks a lot for the info.

Question for you, though. I was considering a .45 ACP can as my first purchase.

Given that 230 grain flies under the 1,000 fps mark shouldn't it also be "Hollywood Quiet"?

Not quite.  45 cans usually aren't as quiet as other pistol caliber cans, mostly because of the big hole in the end for the bullet.  Since 22 LR cans have a small opening for the bullet, they are generally more quiet.  That isn't to say a 45 can isn't quiet, but it will be louder than you expect from Hollywood.  Generally speaking, 22 cans are the quietest, then 9mm cans (with subsonic ammo), then 40 S&W cans (with subsonic) then 45 ACP cans.

22 cans are usually in the 35dB to 40dB reduction range, and almost always "dry" cans.  A 45 can is usually in the 25dB to 30dB range, but those numbers are achieved "wet."  I've got a Gemtech SOS-40, and Gemtech recommends a marine grease to make it "wet."

If you plan on getting a couple, one of which is for 22 LR, I would start with that.  Then move to a centerfire pistol caliber can, then a rifle can.  Those are just recommendations.  It worked for me that way, but maybe not for everyone.

Just be fore-warned, NFAD (NFA disease) is worse than BRD, and more expensive too!

Hmmm...good to know.

Can you offer any recommendations for either .22 LR or 9mm?

My can is very quiet, it gets daily use, but you dont want to be around it when Im done because is smell's like s#!t.

Quoted: Hmmm...good to know. Can you offer any recommendations for either .22 LR or 9mm?

I'm a fan of Gemtech cans, and that is all that I really have any experience with.  I have their Outback II 22 LR suppressor.  It is very lightweight, very quiet and fits very well on my Mark II.



While I don't have a 9mm can, I have played with Gemtech Trinity system, and it is pretty damn cool.  Very versatile with the mounting system, so you can use it on a lot of different guns.  It is also a "dry" can, which is very handy.

As I mentioned earlier, SPG Technologies is my NFA dealer, and he also does fantastic work in terms of threading.  My STI needed a custom threaded sleeve because of the bull barrel and full length dust cover.  This is some of his work pictured below.  

I also had him make a thread adatper so I could run my SOS-40 on my 9mm carbine.  I know that Wade's has in-house gunsmithing (I think) but I don't know if they do barrel threading, or the quality of it.  That is something you would have to check into.

My STI Tactical and SOS-40 combination:





NOTE:  I should hire Hippy to take the pics.  My composition sucks (mostly because I'm lazy.....)  

Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA?

Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA?

in a word....."Yes"

Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA?

Oregon is only an hour and a half from me

Quoted: Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA? Oregon is only an hour and a half from me

I could hit the Oregon shore of the Columbia from my front porch with a good rifle.

Thanks for the info, Scott. Greatly appreciated.

To get a can, do you have to have a signature from a CLEO in your area, or anywhere in the state?  I live in pierce county and have heard from a dealer in bellevue that it is really hard to ge a signature in pierce co.

Quoted: To get a can, do you have to have a signature from a CLEO in your area, or anywhere in the state?  I live in pierce county and have heard from a dealer in bellevue that it is really hard to ge a signature in pierce co.

It needs to be a CLEO in your area, so either the PC Sheriff or the Chief of Police for your city.  But, the better option is to form a trust or incorporate, and have the trust of corporation acquire the assets.  Then there is no CLEO signoff needed.  I prefer the corporate route personally (formed a non-profit in WA, cheap) since I plan on getting quite a few items.  I don't want to go back and "ask permission" to exercise my rights everytime I want something.  I know they would have had a coniption fit if I requested a signoff on my M203....

How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?  

Good?

Bad?

Waste of time?

Quoted: How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?   Good? Bad? Waste of time?

<<GASP!>>

Something Phil doesn't know!

Quoted: Quoted: How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?   Good? Bad? Waste of time? <<GASP!>> Something Phil doesn't know!

I know enough to ask someone who might know though.  

Besides they don't cover that topic in the RCWs or the Federal Code.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?   Good? Bad? Waste of time? <<GASP!>> Something Phil doesn't know! I know enough to ask someone who might know though.   Besides they don't cover that topic in the RCWs or the Federal Code.

My entire impression that "Phil has the internet memorized" is gone.

Quoted: My entire impression that "Phil has the internet memorized" is gone.

How was I supposed to memorize the internet with having been on Dial Up for 11 years (wooo 9600 baud!) and on cable for not yet two months?

Now stop hijacking the thread or my question will get missed.

How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?

Good?

Bad?

Waste of time?

I don't know first hand, but have heard that it will work, just not as well as a .22lr can and the .223 cans are bigger and heavier.  
How do you " form a trust or incorporate, and have the trust of corporation acquire the assets."?  After you do that, can you use the can in WA., or do you still have to go to Oregon or Idaho?

Quoted: How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?   Good? Bad? Waste of time?

Nothing wrong with doing that, but having a heavy (16 oz) M4-02 on the end of a light Ruger Mark II isn't going to balance very well.  The Outback II weighs only 2.5 oz in comparison.  On a rifle, like a 10/22, it probably won't be as noticeable.

You will have to clean the M4-02 more often as well.  .22 LR is dirty stuff, and usually lubed with wax.  Generally, .22 LR suppressors need a soak every 500 rounds to clean them out.  5.56 suppressors generally don't need much maintenance at all.  Keep the mount clean and that is about it.

You can also clean out the M4-02 by shooting some 5.56 ammo through it.  It should blast out the wax and crap.  That is, unless you let it build up too much.  Then you'll need to soak it pretty good.

Quoted: I don't know first hand, but have heard that it will work, just not as well as a .22lr can and the .223 cans are bigger and heavier.   How do you " form a trust or incorporate, and have the trust of corporation acquire the assets."?  After you do that, can you use the can in WA., or do you still have to go to Oregon or Idaho?

The corp or trust is still bound by state laws in terms of use.  I don't know about setting up a trust, but I do know that the ATF handles them like corporate transfers.  Corporate and trust transfers also generally process faster than individual transfers.

Check out THIS LINK for a brief legal discussion....  

Now, as far as forming a corporation, you need to decide what type of corporation you want.  THIS LINK is to the Washington Secretary of State's corporation website, with all the forms and information you need to setup a corp (as well as the fees.)  

I went "non-profit" since the only assets the corporation can acquire in Washington are AOWs, suppressors and DDs, none of which appreciate in value, I wasn't worried about selling an asset and having to deal with profit.  That wouldn't have been an issue anyway, since "non-profit" doesn't mean "no profit", just that making profit cannot be the primary function.  Plus, the non-profit corp is very inexpensive to setup.  $30 the first year, then $10 a year to maintain it.

Now, when you file your Form 4 with the ATF, the form gets filled out with the corporation's information.  You are just the officer of the corp, signing on behalf of it.  The corp owns the item, not you.  Any officer of the corp may have possession and use of the corporation's assets.  So, if you are married, you make your family members officers of the corp, and they can have access, use and possession of the NFA items at any time.  They all must be over 21 years old and have clean records though.  

The Form 4 does not need to be signed off by a CLEO, fingerprints don't need to be submitted, and neither does a photograph.  The corporation is the legal entity, but it doesn't have fingerprints or a photograph.  That is why those items aren't submitted.  I wouldn't have a problem with having to submit fingerprints or photograph of the president of the corporation, but that isn't currently a requirement.  

The following documents must be submitted with the Form 4 however:  The Articles of Incorporation and the Certificate of Incorporation issued by the state.  Pay your $200 and wait 3 to 6 months.  When the Form 4 comes back approved, an officer of the corp picks up the asset from the dealer, and you are done.

ETA:  Looks like you can now apply online for a corporation.  I had to print out a PDF and mail it in.  It still only took about 10 days to get incorporated and get the docs back.

Do you have to fill out tax stuff for your corporation every year?

Quoted: Do you have to fill out tax stuff for your corporation every year?

Nope.  None of the officers get paid, no stock is issued, and generally less than $2,000 in assets are acquired a year.  Also, since "donations" are not tax deductible for the contributor, there is really nothing to do there either.  My corp is a non-profit, not a charitable organization.  The only form I have to fill out every year is a report for the WA SecState, and they mail the form to you!  Just fill it out and mail it back.

Quoted: Quoted: Do you have to fill out tax stuff for your corporation every year? Nope.  None of the officers get paid, no stock is issued, and generally less than $2,000 in assets are acquired a year.  Also, since "donations" are not tax deductible for the contributor, there is really nothing to do there either.  My corp is a non-profit, not a charitable organization.  The only form I have to fill out every year is a report for the WA SecState, and they mail the form to you!  Just fill it out and mail it back.

You're kidding me...right?

I used to be an FFL. When I formed an LLC to do business...I don't even want to tell you what I paid out.

No initial one-time fees? Just the $30 and $10 per year to maintain? Nothing else lurking in the background?

If that's the case...

Quoted: Now, when you file your Form 4 with the ATF, the form gets filled out with the corporation's information.  You are just the officer of the corp, signing on behalf of it.  The corp owns the item, not you.  Any officer of the corp may have possession and use of the corporation's assets.  So, if you are married, you make your family members officers of the corp, and they can have access, use and possession of the NFA items at any time.  They all must be over 21 years old and have clean records though.

Looking for an explanation on why the Corporation "owns" the item?  The item is "registered" to the corporation with the NFRTR database and "possession" must be maintained by those it is registered to, but ownership is another beast, isn't it?

You might try Roger Wilco Arms in Vancouver, he has quoted me Gemtech, AAC, TROS, etc.
I haven't given him any money yet, still getting the finances ready. At least he is local for you.
His e-mail [[email protected]]
Good luck, please post your experiences.

.

Has anyone had any trigger time behind AAC's Omni?

It's (as best as I can tell) the first and only can that will lock onto an unmodified A2 Birdcage.

What's the paperwork look like for a can? Do they ask what you intend to do with it, or does the CLEO have to interview you?

Just curious about the process...
Thanks in advance.

Quoted: What's the paperwork look like for a can? Do they ask what you intend to do with it, or does the CLEO have to interview you? Just curious about the process... Thanks in advance.

Paperwork (Form 4) is the same for any NFA item.  You'll need fingerprints, photos and CLEO signoff in duplicate.

The form asks why you want it - but many simply put "For all lawful purposes".

The CLEO is not required to interview, or even sign the form for that matter.  The CLEO may do nearly whatever they wish with regards to your application.  Most either sign or outright refuse.  Most do a background check similar to a CCW application.  I had a sheriff interview once - nothing special.

Quoted: Has anyone had any trigger time behind AAC's Omni? It's (as best as I can tell) the first and only can that will lock onto an unmodified A2 Birdcage. What's the paperwork look like for a can? Do they ask what you intend to do with it, or does the CLEO have to interview you? Just curious about the process... Thanks in advance.

That distinction goes to Gemtech's HALO actually.  It mounts to standard A2 flash hiders, and has been out almost a year now.  I love AAC's marketing quote, even if it is full of total bullshit.  I guess it depends on your defintion of "fast attach".....

The Omni does seem to have some advantages/disadvantages though.  The quicker attach method is a plus, but the moving parts are not.  Indexing on the wrench flats is great for repeatability.  Having all the mounting pieces contained on the unit is a plus.  They are taking shots at the HALO because the thread collar is a separate piece.  Well, if the locking collar on the Omni breaks, it's worthless too.

Anyway, the suppressor industry has more fiction than fact.  Everybody claims to have the "first", or "best" or "class leading."  I know that Gemtech's customer service is fantastic, but I can't comment on AAC's.  I own Gemtech Cans, not AAC cans.

I say you buy the Omni, then we can compare them side by side with my HALO!

Tagged for corp startup info.

I say you buy the Omni, then we can compare them side by side with my HALO![quote/]

You might have a deal there brother!
I've got an aquaintance who swears by an AAC Ranger, and he's got me sold on their worksmanship. However, there is no shortage of "mine is the best because I have it!" mentality out there in the shooting world.

I'll give it a go, and perhaps will see you at a shoot in the future.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?   Good? Bad? Waste of time? hock.gif <<GASP!>> Something Phil doesn't know! I know enough to ask someone who might know though.   Besides they don't cover that topic in the RCWs or the Federal Code.  hr My entire impression that "Phil has the internet memorized" is gone. hr

i think strat has memorized the internet

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How about using a 223 supressor such as the M4-02 (Piranha) for 22lr too?   Good? Bad? Waste of time? <<GASP!>> Something Phil doesn't know! I know enough to ask someone who might know though.   Besides they don't cover that topic in the RCWs or the Federal Code.   My entire impression that "Phil has the internet memorized" is gone. i think strat has memorized the internet

And the RCW, The Preamble, and the Bill of Rights!

Oh so tagged- a can for my .22 before my next Oregon trip is  clearly in order.

1911fan

Larsen Firearms and Scott Long in Pasco WA are also two.

What does anyone know first-hand about trying to get a signature from the Pierce County Sheriff?

I thought I'd bring this back to the top.  Scollins posted a lot of good info.

I am curious about the pierce co. sherriff too.......

Geeze guys, just get ear plugs!

Quoted: Geeze guys, just get ear plugs!

Lordy - that's like telling me to just drive a Gremlin when I could have a Vette.  

Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA?

I just bought two cans and my dealer supplied me with a letter from the State Attorney Generals Office stating they are good to go. Evidently the WAC does not apply to legally bought suppressors.

Quoted: Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA? I just bought two cans and my dealer supplied me with a letter from the State Attorney Generals Office stating they are good to go. Evidently the WAC does not apply to legally bought suppressors.

Phil what does WAC say about that???


I just submitted the application for Nonprofit Crop.

Quoted: Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA? I just bought two cans and my dealer supplied me with a letter from the State Attorney Generals Office stating they are good to go. Evidently the WAC does not apply to legally bought suppressors.

The AG letter says POSSESSION and OWNERSHIP are good to go, but does not say you can USE them.  The prohibition against using suppressors is in the RCW, and it makes no exemption for legally owned suppressors (or even law enforcement use!)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Man, a suppressor is quite tempting, especially with a new threaded barrel for my USPc on the way. But, aren't they still illegal to actually fire in WA? I just bought two cans and my dealer supplied me with a letter from the State Attorney Generals Office stating they are good to go. Evidently the WAC does not apply to legally bought suppressorssmiley.onegreatguy.net/question.gif. Phil what does WAC say about that??? I just submitted the application for Nonprofit Crop.smiley.onegreatguy.net/yay2.gif

The dealer supplied the AG letter so that you can have it in your SKSGuy style briefcase to show an LEO that might happen upon you and your supressors and not be fully aware of the details of RCW 9.41.250.

The WAC as far as I know contains no language regarding supressors.  The RCW says:

RCW 9.41.250 Dangerous weapons -- Penalty. Every person who: (3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

Scollins is correct about the AGs opinion.

AGO_1988_No_016 [[Orig. Op. Page 1] ] CRIMES ‑- FIREARMS It is not unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to merely possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm.                                                              - - - - - - - - - - - - -                                                                 August 30, 1988 Honorable Kent Pullen State Senator, 47th District Institutions Building Olympia, Washington 98504                                                                                                                 Cite as:  AGO 1988 No. 16 Dear Senator Pullen:            By letter previously acknowledged, you have asked for our opinion on a question we have paraphrased as follows:            Is it unlawful under RCW 9.41.250 to possess a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm?            We answer your question in the negative for the reasons set forth in our analysis.                                                                     ANALYSIS            RCW 9.41.250, the provision about which you have inquired, provides:            Every person who shall manufacture, sell or dispose of or have in his possession any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement; who shall furtively carry with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or who shall use any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. (Emphasis added.)             [[Orig. Op. Page 2]]            In essence, your question is concerned with whether the term "use" in the underscored language of RCW 9.41.250 includes mere possession of a noise suppression device.  Absent a statutory definition, words in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning.  Davis v. Department of Empl. Sec., 108 Wn.2d 272, 737 P.2d 1262 (1987).  The ordinary meaning of the term "use" is to put a thing into service or action.  Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 2523-2524 (1981).  Thus, the use of a device for suppressing the noise of a firearm contemplates employing that device or putting it into service.  Although use of such a device may be incident to possession, use is quite different from simply possessing the device or exercising control over it.            In our opinion, the language of RCW 9.41.250 about which you have inquired is unambiguous.  It does not prohibit mere possession of a device to suppress the noise of a firearm.            Even if the term "use" in RCW 9.41.250 were ambiguous, rules of statutory construction would dictate against interpreting the term to include mere possession.  First, RCW 9.41.250 is a criminal statute.  Where two reasonable constructions of a criminal statute are possible, a court is required to adopt the interpretation most favorable to a person accused of violating the statute.  State v. Gore, 101 Wn.2d 481, 681 P.2d 227 (1984).  Here, of course, that would be an interpretation excluding mere possession.  Second, where the Legislature employs certain language in one part of a statute and different language in another part, a difference in legislative intent is indicated. United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Department of Rev., 102 Wn.2d 355, 687 P.2d 186 (1984).  The Legislature has employed the term "possession" in RCW 9.41.250 and thereby has made mere possession of certain weapons a misdemeanor.  The Legislature did not employ that same term with reference to noise suppression devices.  According to this rule of construction, the Legislature's failure to do so indicates that is did not intend "use" to include mere possession.            We trust that the foregoing will be of assistance to you. Sincerely, KENNETH O. EIKENBERRY Attorney General MAUREEN HART Sr. Assistant Attorney General

RCW 9.41.250 Dangerous weapons -- Penalty. Every person who: (3) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.

Strangely, when you read this - it could pertain to just about anything - not just suppressors.  Think of all the noise abatement that firing ranges put up - they're illegal!  Clearly the State of Washington wants firearm noise to be heard as clearly as possible.  

Quoted: I went "non-profit" since the only assets the corporation can acquire in Washington are AOWs, suppressors and DDs

Ok I figured out what AOWs are, Suppressors are, but what are DDs?

-Rob